that has been the model. oklahoma is one of the first producing states in the nation. those laws have been adopted by every other state that had oil production later on. that type of regulation is already in place, and it is very stringent. we respect the fact that we need fresh water. everybody does. i think the strongest statement that is out there, the former director of the epa said the they have not had one single incident of a fracking contaminating fresh water. that is about as strong as it gets. millions of wells have been fought over 60 years. -- fracked over 60 years.

a new renaissance had come into place at the time of my first job in the industry. several thousand barrels of water on each trip and was used -- trip was used. 50-some years ago. >> the power of propaganda is not be dismissed. one not terribly honest image, a guy in colorado lighting is faucet on fire, could put this multi-trillion dollar industry

out of business. or practically out of business. >> that is a very graphic attack on -- natural gas occurring -- in south the kidnadakota, the have a flame burning. i said, you waste a lot of gas out there. they said, we have wasted gas for hundreds of years. that is natural. it comes out of a natural formation there with the water. there is no oil in the area of south dakota at all. >> 47 places in united states

called burning springs because the of naturally occurring methane in the water. in pennsylvania, the first case they had of water catching on fire was in 1670. it is been happening for a while. they have had documented cases in colorado of wells catching .ire since the 20's this has caused a panic nonetheless. it does become a celebrity cause to talk about how fracking is going to mess up all the drinking water, all of our sins are going to catch on fire. it is amazing to me -- sinks are going to catch on fire. it is amazing to me how much money they have to put towards this propaganda.

they have enough money to advertise. i do not think we ever had an exxon ad in the national review. >> >> promised land, the primary backers was uae. >> why would they want to do that? [laughter] >> protecting what they have. did not want to see the technology that we have here come see them over there. >> a lot of people do not realize this huge trade deficit we have. half of it historical has been energy products, mostly oil. if you get to the point where

you are a self-sufficient producer -- i am glad you said north american energy independent. i always disliked the idea of this national energy independence. if you become energy self- sufficient, you eliminate half the trade deficit. this really changes the balance of payments and the overall shape and direction of the economy. could you speak to that? >> i for started talking about it two years ago. -- i first started talking about it two years ago. i started talking about what was possible with oil. i was a lone wolf in the woods at the time. since then, the bandwagon has loaded up.

a lot of other people are saying, yes, it could happen, and it to be very important for america. particularly as it translates from energy to the general economy. there are more pillars' out there, housing, manufacturing -- they depend on recovery. the one that does not is energy, because the international demand is already there. it has been created by china, india. all around the world. the weakened cash in on that. would not have to wait on it. -- we can cash in on that. we do not have to wait on it. we need to keep doing what we're doing. it is going to mean a tremendous amount of jobs.

we have seen that all through the midwest. north dakota is certainly a huge example of it. they say now there is to% and unemployed -- 2% unemployed there. we cannot find those folks. [laughter] we're seeing that growth for oklahoma, texas, kansas, other places. and now pennsylvania. it goes on and on. and also, manufacturing. we're seeing a lot of manufacturing come back to the u.s. it makes all the plastics, all

those types of things. that is a huge industry. all that type of manufacturing -- one in eight people work in that industry are somehow related to it. it can be a big economic driver for america. >> one of the things about manufactured that is misunderstood, is everyone talks about manufacturing as if it is a rush to low-wage countries. .t is not cure germany manufacturers lots of stuff, including high end, useful things. germans are not corporate they're not working for four dollars a day. the have certain industrial capacities -- they have certain industrial capacities.

one of the things i thought was really striking about that as a have traveled around these sites is that it creates a two. distinct types of jobs. the white collar jobs, because your engineers and investors and business managers. it also creates a lot of blue- collar jobs for skilled and semi skilled labor. there is a ripple effect in these communities. i was in williamsport. there was a restaurant there that have added something like 40 employees and bought a big mobile kitchen so they could take it out to where the gas fields were so the people who were drilling would not have to stop. one of the diners there had a wonderful sign that said, "no blood on the floor, and no cash in the drawer -- mud on the floor, no cash in the drawer." [laughter]

you cannot rent an apartment in midland, texas because they're so many people moving there. college graduate types, were going to be engineers, there was never really a recession for them. . the kind of crisis we have in the economy is not really so much for highly skilled, highly educated people who are mobile and work and a global environment and a large market. it is for the non college-bound people who used to go into factory jobs, blue-collar jobs that have been disappearing because of global labor competition. this brings back something on both sides. >> i talked to young people lot. mentoring them was real important.

our industry changed a lot. it used to be joe roughneck out there on the raid. -- rig. today it is so highly technical. we see so many people out there. use the computers up on our raised floor. -- use the computers up on our -- you see computers up on our rig floor. there are guys following what we are doing, making real time decisions. it is a different world today than it was before. an incredibly dirty business. -- nerdy business. it has become that.

>> we had an odd editorial meeting about two years ago in which someone came in and was talking to us about the need for investments in wind power and also in mandating the use of gas. multiple choice question for you. is he a fool, or a villain? [laughter] >> i think he learned a lesson or two with the wind whenever but ordered all these generators. inkatha -- when everybody ordered all these generators. when natural gas gets over $6, when it is very economic.

but then gas falls to $2.50 and $3 to. suddenly all those generators went begging. with the government also help, but have still been putting some up -- with the government's help, they have still been putting some up. certainly it is a huge thing that should not be going forward. >> $90 billion a year, that is what you and peter to make, right? [laughter] a lot of people think that we need government policy to guide this stuff. to be fair to boone pickens, but he was arguing for was the federal mandate that commercial vehicles had to use gas and would provide subsidies to switch the engine over.

that is not terribly different from what barack obama thinks about, with using solar batteries. happy dreams and unicorns stre. do we need guidance from the department of energy or any sort of federal policy? can the market take care of it on its own? >> it ought to be decided in the marketplace. a lot of this takes a long time. horizontal drilling took 20, 30 years. the time it takes to produce confirmations. it ought to be decided in the marketplace. everybody converting over too cheap, natural gas for their cars? the fact is that it is not

always going to be cheap. once people start paying highway taxes like you do for gasoline, that is suddenly going to get more expensive. already you cannot recover your cost of those conversions. certainly do not need all us to pay for those conversions. the problem will be solved in the marketplace, particularly with what is available to us as a resource base today. and that is our own production. one other factor a lot of people miss, besides a wealth creation and all of those things, a big one is that the psychological benefit of us not being under the thumb of opec any longer. the american public likes to be

independent. we like to be free. suddenly we can be free from what we have been under for 50 years. the psychological impact of that is huge. >> i have always thought the the impact of oil on american middle east policies was understated. there is an episode where he is looking at the equipment and the people and investment and he says, it costs a lot of money to steal oil. [laughter] i think you're right, there's a certain psychological advantage to it. griffin were not for oil, no one would care about saudi -- if it were not for oil, no one would care about saudi arabia. without oil, saudi arabia is yemen. until two years ago, who knew where yemen was ordered? -- was, or cared?

[laughter] >> most of our imports come from canada and mexico there's a flip side to that. there is not really a global market forecasts of this point. even the relatively cheap gas in north america, relatively expensive gas in europe. there are barriers to are exporting our production. can you talk a little bit about the barriers to exports. >> you have to go through the permitting process. but we found no people or exporting it. -- we now found that people are exported. dow chemical and others would say, we do not want you to do that. it might run are price up. -- our price up.

them. weeping for are there other barriers to exports? >> clear a huge barrier is the need to be taken down. -- there were huge barriers the need to be taken down. for example, the jones act. you can ship a barrel from saudi arabia to hear across water for less than $2. you cannot load in houston and ship around to philadelphia for $2. it costs $6.50 a barrel. it just costs everybody here a whole lot of money. we need those barriers to come down where we can normalize the

price. we of had a $16, $17 difference between that [indiscernible] if the $16, when you convert that to what it is costing, 25¢ a gallon, it is a lot of money. and $5, that is almost a dime. pretty soon, you're almost talking real money about what it costs on the coast. >> why would you be shipping to philadelphia in the first place? [laughter] >> some of those refineries were in tough shape over the past two or three years.

one or more shut down. some of them changed hands. and certainly, they need supply. they need our supply. now, most of the oil is moving by rail. it is not a bad way. i saw warren buffett last night. he loves it. that is fairly expensive way to ship, compared to transportation by pipe and also by barge. certainly some of those restrictions ought to be lifted. >> speaking of pipelines, i have a radical idea that we can build one to canada and connect some of our producers with our refineries down here. that seems to not be happening. >> there was a hitch.

who knows now. you will see what happens, if anything changes or not. nolet's hope there is endangered sand hills salamander up there. [laughter] we have not built a new refinery in i do not know how long california, last year, two refineries went out. the cost was an absolute nightmare. prices went through the roof. if we had another big storm hit the east coast and knock out some refineries and distribution points, you could be looking at shortages. why aren't we building more stuff, more refineries? what is keeping that from happening? >> federal permitting has been

slow to come out for any new refineries. the house and a lot of addition to the courage refineries. -- there has been a lot of additions to the current refineries. if one of them has a problem, like chevron did with the fire, it puts the whole region and the crunch. -- in a crunch. that can certainly happen. there have been upgrades to existing refineries. that is not as big an issue as basically that the transportation, that is what is really hurting for. moving it from producing areas to where you needed. >> after the storm, did not let them transport gas into new york

because it did not meet the standard. i am sure someone in bpa has a good reason for it. i cannot imagine what it might be. which brings me to run for political questions during a lot of people do not realize that gas drilling, fracking is regulated at the state level -- questions. , lot of people do not realize that gas drilling, fracking is regulated at the state level. the geology is different from place to place. you probably need different rules in the marcel shell in pennsylvania -- marcel shale in pennsylvania then you need and north dakota. the monster under the bed is the epa is going to come out and federalize this, which basically

means the end. >> you're exactly right. to graphically, geologically, there is a whole lot of reasons that it should be done at state level -- geographically, geologically, there is a new poll lot of reasons that it should be done at state level. -- whole lot of reasons w hy it why it should be done at the state level. we need to continue state regulation. >> do you think the obama administration will get more aggressive about this in the second term? >> we were fearful.

certainly there could be a lot of efficiency by allowing the state to regulate on federal lands. understaffed, generally. the appellate little better in the last couple months, maybe because there was a limelight on how long it takes -- to have been a little better in the last couple months, maybe because there was a limelight on how long it takes. there is something amiss here. would yo>> allowing the states o regulate on federal lands are more like the chances of seeing

a dinosaur, or bigfoot? >>, one of the other. -- one or the other. it should happen, but duplication effort is tremendous there. >> what is washington -- what should washington be doing to encourage this? this is the big play of our time, anand economically. the equivalent to the technology boom in the 1990's. is there anything the government can do besides stay the hell out of the way? >> xm lot of things are happening right for america today. -- a lot of things are happening right for america today.

there are several things i could be done to help -- that could be done to help. rebuild the jones act. >> the act requiring the oil be transported under u.s. flag ships? >> yes. that is a union issue. things like that. >> you don't think the longshoremen would take it well? >> i would not want to look forward to that. but it should happen. >> i saw the industry kind of

turn a corner. you hear these ads on the radio, move to wherever and drive a water truck for this company or that company. several years ago, the ads were, if you have a commercial driver's license, the company will hire you today. now the ads are, if you can get a commercial driver's license, we will pay for you to get the commercial driver's license and put you on the payroll afterwards. you've got guys driving crack -- r trucks making 75,000 $75,000, $85,000 a year. -- driving water trucks making $75,000, $85,000 a year. do you have a feel for what kind

of long-term impact this could make on the employment situation? >> when a lot of folks there in north dakota now come from far- flung places, they have hitchhiked there to get there and everything else. as you talk about having a commercial license, they would rather train most folks anyway. you do not have to have a those companies will train you and make sure that you are safe -- a license. those companies will train you and make sure that you are safe after your trade. they will do all those things. -- trained. they will do all those things. some of those companies were looking for 1000 drivers. it was a big problem.

it has gotten better. you needed carpenters to need skilled people of all kinds to build infrastructure kamakur, restaurants. it was a big problem. pennsylvania has had a situation with unemployment there. >> one interpretation of the election is that fracking cost mitt romney the presenthe presi. it really did make a significant difference in what turned out to be swing states. >> it did.

>> and not think oklahoma was in place. -- i do not think oklahoma was in place. [laughter] >> our company has doubled the size of our employment base there. we are not huge employers yet. 750 people. that is double what we were three years ago. >> one of the environmental challenges, people worry about what you put down the wells in fracking, but it is mostly water and sand. the problem is what comes up. there is naturally occurring radioactive material down there. there is our sncc, barry m.. -- arsenic, barium. in the early days they would

turn the water over to the municipal water authorities, who would water it down until they got down to the legal toxicity levels, and then dump it. the problem was, what do we do with all this waste water. they have decided, let's not a bit. they figured out ways to fill the water -- dum pit. they figured out ways to filter the water. >> that was something that had to come along with infrastructure. transportation water and handling water is expensive. it is better to keep it and not have to dispose of it and use it over and over and over again. we have a lot of companies out there know, particularly in pennsylvania -- now,

particularly in pennsylvania, 90% of the water they use is recycled. over and over and over. you have got a medium there that what you are doing is carrying sand into these small fractures in the rocks. natural fractures. there enhanced and propped open. that is basically all your doing with the water. it is just that medium to deliver that sand. >> i have seen two places where alternative energy works. one, there is a big refinery in the texas panhandle that has something like 100 wind turbines attached to it. when the wind is blowing it, it generates enough power to the wholergy to power

refinery. i have seen wells that use solar power. >> we use solar power all weekend. but the sun is not always shining. the wind is not always blowing. you need a lot of gas before wind turbines. the most-active -- for wind turbines. you almost need to double up. north dakota, we go through several months that you do not see the sun. >> one question. >> who is your crew now?

this is a policy conference, but my question is more technical. how do turn and 8 inch pipe r -- dond dyed it clear dick y you turn an 8-inch pipe right? >> amazing how you can do that. you do it in a 350 foot radius. the pipe will bend and still turn and all that. is flexible to the point that you can do that. turns around the bend. it is amazing. >> it is like one of those flexible straws?

>> yeah, but it's big. good question. >> last question. basically optimistic about the future of the energy renaissance? do you think we will get through it without the epa messing it up? >> this aspiration has taken claim for the gameins we have me in energy. i think that we have a great optimistic case for the recovery of the economy. based on energy. it is about a trillion dollars a year turnaround. that is huge. i am very optimistic. i think it is too important to blow.

i think the current administration may realize that. >> harold hamm, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow, "washington journal" focuses on our national governors. we will talk with reporters from florida and illinois about what the governors in those states are facing. joshed goodman. th -- josh goodman. your calls and questions. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span, "washington journal." >> created by america's cable.

>> , on thursday, secretary of state nominee john kerry testified at his confirmation hearing before the foreign relations committee. more than four decades ago, senator kerry testified against the vietnam war before this in committee. he has served as the massachusetts senator for more than 25 years. current secretary of state hillary clinton introduced senator kerry at the hearing. harry reid said he is working to hold a focused tuesday on the nomination. this hearing is about four hours. -- vote tuesday on the nomination. this hearing is about four hours.

[indistinct conversations]

>> good morning. this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. let me ask, as i did yesterday, i ask unanimous consent of returning members to allow prospective member to participate in today's hearing. if there is no objection, it is so ordered. let me start by saying, you are not at the table yet, senator. we will have you there shortly. wow. [laughter] let me say, mr. chairman, you are still our committees chaired, deeply humbled to preside over the committee today as we consider your nomination. we are honored to welcome you as the president's nominee for a

position you have most deservedly earned. the first time you testified before chairman fulbright as a young returning vietnam war hero in 1971 to the day the president nominated and announced your nomination as secretary of state. you may not be aware of it, but you'll be the first member of this panel to send directly to -- ascend directly to the position since senator john sherman of ohio. more than 100 years ago. you are clearly making history once again. yours is a big chair to fill and i will do my best today to live up to your example. always open to debate, always ready to mitigate disagreements, always looking for the truth on uncovering the facts, hearing all the evidence and publicly speaking truth to power.

as a senator and a member of this committee and as chairman, you have already build stronger relationships with leaders around the world, which will help you seamlessly into the role of secretary of state. you will need no introduction to the world's political and military leaders and will fully converse with the intricacies of u.s. policies with an understanding of the nuanced approach necessary to effectively interact on a multinational stage. when vice president biden said in his chair, he said good international relationships are always predicated on strong interpersonal relationships. i think we can all agree that you have such a high standard for developing those relationships throughout your career and as secretary of state, you will continue to strengthen those relationships on behalf of the president. i will have some questions later on policies and your

views, including how do explain to world leaders how you could of -- have been rooting for the boston red sox instead of what the world knows as the new york yankees as the team of the world, but it has been a pleasure working with you looking forward to -- you. looking forward to continuing to work with you any issues you have championed over the years. fighting global terrorism, preventing the spread of chemical weapons, fighting for human rights. fighting crimes for drug trafficking and standing up for the interest of foreign service around the world. should you be confirmed, and i know you will, your portfolio will be greatly expanded, you'll be center stage representing the interests of all of us. promoting commerce, enhancing cross cultural ties and keeping america secure through cooperation more possible and --

where possible and isolation were necessary as in the case of iran. it goes without saying that you have been a world leader in one of the most consequential issues of our time, climate change. it hardens heartens me to know -- heartens me to know that someone with your commitment to the issue will be our voice to the world. the state department cannot be in better hands. when it comes to america's role in world affairs, i know we agree it is critical the united states remain fully engaged. we project the power of our military strength when necessary and the wisdom of our democratic ideals as we adjust to the new threats and demands we will face. there is no doubt he will be -- you will be tested in your new role as secretary, nor is there any doubt that you will pass any tests with honors as you always have. let me thank you on behalf of the committee for all you have done in the senate and the

chairmanship of this committee is an anticipation of your confirmation by the full senate, i wish you good luck and godspeed in many journeys that lie ahead. we look forward to having a close working relationship with you as the next secretary of state. let me recognize senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank are three distinguished guests. i want to thank you for your courtesy over the last six years as i served on this committee. i look at you as being nominated for this as someone who has lived their entire life for this moment of being able to serve in this capacity. there is no one in the united states senate that has spent more time than you have on issues with the experience you have developed while being on

this committee and spending time abroad with world leaders. there is al most no olmost no oo spent that kind of time and effort. i am happy for you. i know the many conversations we have had over the last two weeks, you are very anxious to serve. you are ready to go. my sense is your confirmation will go through very quickly. i do look forward to your testimony today. secretary clinton is here today after a day of hearings both here and in the house. i think you are inheriting the department that has numbers of challenges. we saw a systemic issues that need to be addressed and in the process of being addressed right now. our nation has budgetary constraints, which means that in all of these departments creativity will have to be utilized to make sure we make the most of what we have and making sure that our u.s. interests are put forth.

we have a world that is a dangerous world and things continue to come over -- sometimes it is surprising times. and i know you will have to lead our country in addressing those as they come about. will be e that you helping us work with you to make sure that as we move ahead, we move ahead together. we have many challenges and i know on monday, president obama said america will remain the anchor. we'll renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crises abroad for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than the most powerful nation. i could not agree more. i look forward to hearing your

testimony today about what you hope to do in your new capacity. i certainly welcome the three distinguished people who are here today to introduce you, which i know is a tremendous honor for you. thank you for your service. >> we have a star-studded panel to introduce the nominee. starting -- i will introduce you in order of your presentation. i want to welcome back the secretary. again. we appreciate you coming back so soon. again, thanks for incredible service to our country. my understanding, although i've been told differently, senator warren, who is our new colleague from the great state

of massachusetts, is going to be part of introducing her senior senator for the committee. then secretary clinton and then our distinguished colleague a member of this committee now as well, senator mccain. senator warren. >> it is an honor to be here with secretary clinton and senator mccain to introduce my senior center and my friend, -- senator and my friend, senator john kerry. i have the privilege of speaking for a man i know will continue in the tradition of john quincy adams as great secretary from the commonwealth of massachusetts. although john learned much about diplomacy overseas and in the senate, and he would be the first to tell you that massachusetts is also a great teacher of diplomatic skills. whether it was negotiating his way to make the ballot as long

shot underdog in a five-way heavily contested state convention in 1982, or the way he brought labor and management to the table over a long weekend, brought in dunkin donuts and negotiated the 92- day long teachers and nurses strike, if anyone wants to learn diplomacy, come try massachusetts politics. john certainly has. john's story is well-known to many of us from his youth as the son of a foreign service officer. learning about foreign-policy around the dinner table each night to this service in combat -- his service in combat in vietnam. less well known is the story of this foreign policy work inside dissonant. -- the senate. his 90 overseas trips that he made in 28 years on foreign relations committee, his work to ensure free elections in the philippines, his work with aids

in africa, his work as chairman of the new start treaty and his very public and successful diplomatic intervention in afghanistan, pakistan, and sudan. historians will judged his senate years on his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many people recognized ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, he has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or governments, but also people. i once asked john why he loves the senate. he said it is the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he has been working quietly to help a father from massachusetts, whose

two sons were kidnapped and taken to egypt. john even called former president mubarak and had a screaming match with him about it. five times he has been to egypt and every time, colin has been at the top of his list in every meeting. every senator has a colin -- it is what we do. we fight for people back home. as secretary, john will understand that and bend over backwards to help us do that. he will be a terrific bridge from the hill to the administration. i know that john kerry cares deeply about our country and our national security. i know he believes in the good that america can do in the world. he has seen it and he has lived all his life. from seeing the marshall plan in action with his father, to volunteering to serve in the military and traveling all these

years as a senator. america is not exceptional because we say we are. we are exceptional because we do exceptional things. when an airplane lands anywhere in the world, i will be proud that it will be john carey represented us. -- kerry representing us. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> it is very good to be back. and to have this opportunity to join with senator warren and senator mccain in introducing president obama's nominee. i was very honored when john asked me to take part in this. john is the right choice to carry forward the obama administration's foreign policy. i urge speedy confirmation. as we have heard from both the chairman and ranking member and

senator warren, he will bring a record of leadership at service -- and service that is exemplary. he has a view of the world that he has acted on first as a young returning veteran from vietnam who appeared before this committee for the time that he -- through the time that he served with such distinction as its chairman. he has been a valued partner to this administration and to me personally. he has fought for our diplomats and development experts. he understands the value of investing in america's global leadership. as we work to implement the accountability review board's recommendations, he is committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack and protect our people around the world. working together, we have achieved a great deal. the state department and usaid

have a lot of unfinished business from afghanistan to non-proliferation to climate change to so much. we need to sustain our renewed engagement in the asia-pacific, continue granting of economics -- ramping up economics as a tool for advancing american interests, pressing forward with them leasing the potential of -- unleashing the potential of the world's women and girls, keep championing of the kind of smart power that looks to innovation and partnerships with governments and people like to promote peace and stability. john has built strong relationships with leaders and he has experienced in representing our country in fragile and unpredictable circumstances. he was in pakistan and afghanistan a few years ago. we were consulting over the phone. he played an instrumental role in working on president karzei to accept the results of the

election. -- election and to move forward. i had to call harry reid so that john could continue to stay there. that is what he does. he is a determined representative of the united states, has been as a senator, it will be as secretary. let me close by saying that leading our diplomats and development experts is a great honor. every day, as i testified yesterday, i have seen firsthand their skill and bravery and unwavering commitment to our country. i have been proud to call them colleagues and to serve as secretary of state and i am very pleased that john will be given the chance, subject to confirmation, it to continue the work of a lifetime. >> thank you, madame secretary. >> i am pleased to be here to

introduce and speak and say a few words about my friend senator kerry to the committee. obviously, the nominee does not need to be introduced to the committee on which he has served for over a quarter of the century as its chairman, so i can dispense with the customary summary. they are well known to you and to all of our colleagues. i would like to take a few moments to attest to the personal qualities that senator kerry would bring to the office of secretary of state, which i think are well suited to the position. he and i have been friends for quite a long time now. we have had our disagreements, which is not surprising given our political differences. as is often the case, our friendship has been affected from time to time by our enthusiasm for differing views and by the competitive nature of politics. the friendship has endured, i

believe, it is based in mutual respect. some observers have attributed that respect to the fact that when we were much younger, nicer, and better looking men, senator kerry and i spent some time at the navy's behest in a certain southeast asian country in less pleasant circumstances. i have always respected and honored senator kerry's service in vietnam, my respect for john as a senator and my support for his nomination today originated in a very different experience. that experience, too, concerned a country in the war he and i were pledged to serve in. -- privileged to serve in,. it required required extraordinary diplomatic skills. the administration of president reagan and george herbert walker bush pursued limited

engagement with the government of vietnam. many americans were still listed as pow mia. that effort was led by a man both john and i respect enormously, the former chairman of the joint chiefs. he continued as the president's special emissary to vietnam. by the early 1990's, both john and i had come to the view that it would be better for our country to have a relationship with vietnam that served our current and future interest than one that continued to nurse the hostilities of our recent tragic past. we both understood that could never be the case unless the new -- we knew american soldiers were not still kept against their will in vietnam and until vietnam fully cooperated in helping us account for americans who did not return home from the war.

to help find answers, appointed a select committee. members of that committee had passionate and conflicting views of the subjects. whether or not vietnam's still kept american pows. the subject was controversial and provoked strong passions of many americans, not the least of which were the families of the missing. most americans who cared about the issue were people of sincere goodwill and honesty. there were also a few charlatans and con artists involved in the activist communities who promoted all kinds of conspiracy theories and plausible scenarios. on many occasions, our public hearings became circus. behind-the-scenes arguments between members became heated and personal as any as i've ever experienced.

getting information about p.o.w. mias from the intelligence community was fraught with the usual objections and difficulties in getting information from the vietnamese even more so. it was not a pleasant experience. through it all, john led the committee with persistence and the pursuit of the truth and with an absolute unshakeable resolve to get our result that all members could accept. no matter how contentious things got, john believed he would get all of the committee to see reason and provide an answer that would be accepted by most veterans. and he did.

he got all the members to agree to an exhaustive investigative report that concluded there was not credible evidence that americans remain in captivity in vietnam. it was a masterful accomplishment. after that experience, we worked together to encourage the clinton administration and the government of vietnam to begin normalizing relations. i witnessed his diplomatic skills and practice again. his patience, persistence, persuasiveness, tact, singular focus on getting the best result possible in negotiations with a diverse array of government officials in both countries convincing a reluctant administration to make what the president's advisers considered a politically perilous decision. reluctant senators to vote for our resolution recommending normalization. it was an impressive performance, to say the least. helping to establish a relationship with vietnam that serves american interests and values rather than one that

remained mired in mutual resentment and bitterness is one of my proudest accomplishment as a senator. witnessing almost daily his exemplary statesmanship is one of the highest privileges i have had here. should he be confirmed and become our next secretary of state, i am sure we will have our disagreements, i know he will use his many talents and his persistence to advance our country's interest. i commend his nomination to you without reservation. >> you might want to rest your case there, mr. chairman. thanks to this distinguished

panel, thank you very much. now we call up chairman kerry. >> mr. chairman, we welcome you to the other side of the committee. we look forward to your testimony and introductions you want to make. >> mr. chairman, ranking member corker, i would like to have the privilege of introducing

very quickly. i think most of you know my wonderful wife. my brother, who is serving at the congress department as counsel there. my daughter vanessa and her husband, both of whom are working as physicians. i have another daughter who is not here. i have looked down at the witnesses and wondered what they are thinking sometimes as we

question them. i do not want this to affect your opening questions. i've never seen a more distinguished and better looking group of officials in my life. suddenly, i am feeling a lot of sympathy for the folks to sit down here. i want you to know a couple of nights ago, i was watching "godfather ii," if someone suddenly shows up with my long lost brother back in the audience, all bets are off, folks. i am enormously grateful for the generous comments of the chair and the ranking member. thank you very much. thank you for your tremendous cooperation over the course of the last years. i will tell you i enjoyed chairing this committee and

working with all of you as much as anything i have been privileged to do in my career. i think this is one of the great committees of the senate and it is the only major committee i have served on every single day since i arrived here in 1985. as you know, the committee carries special responsibilities for the security of our nation and i thank each and every one of you for the serious consideration you have brought to challenging

issues and for the incredible cooperation i have received as chairman. if confirmed, i look forward to continuing to work closely with all of you as we tackle some very tough problems. and i particularly welcome the new members in that regard. i am grateful for president obama for nominating me. i am very grateful to secretary clinton, senator mccain and senator warren for their introductions. i will not take it personally that this may be the one item in washington that seems to unite republicans and democrats to get me out of the senate quicker. secretary clinton has served

above and beyond the call of duty. her service has been superb and we all thank her for a job well done, for her tireless efforts on behalf of our nation. she has set a very high bar for the stewardship of the state department. i can pledge to you that with the consent of the senate, i will do everything in my power to summon all my focus to build on her record and on the president's vision. senator mccain, as he mentioned, is a longtime friend. we met here in the senate, coming from very different political positions. we found common ground. i will never forget standing with them in hanoi, just the two of us. listening to him talk about that experience.

i will always be grateful for his partnership in helping to make real peace with vietnam by establishing the most significant process in the history of our country or of any country for the accounting of missing and dead in any war. for working to lift the embargo and ultimately normalize relations with an old enemy. we were able to help heal deep wounds and end a war that had divided too many people for much too long. as we talk about war and peace and foreign policy, i want all of us to keep in our minds, as i think we do, the extraordinary men and women in uniform who are on the front lines, even as we meet here today. the troops at war to help protect america. i can pledge to you that as a

veteran of war, i will always carry the consequences of our decisions in my mind and be grateful that we have such an extraordinary people to back us up. i also thank my new colleague senator warren for her generous comment. it is humbling to be here before you in this new role. my approach to this role, if confirmed, is also deeply informed by the 28 plus years i have been privileged to spend in the senate. that perspective will remain with me if confirmed as secretary. i am already excited by the many ways we can work together and by which we must work together in order to advance america's securities interest in a complicated and more

dangerous world. i would add that i am aware that in many ways, the greatest challenge to america's foreign- policy will be in your hands, not mine. while it is often said that we cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world, these days of fiscal crisis, and as a recovering member of the super committee, i am especially cognizant of the fact that we cannot be strong in the world unless you're strong at home. the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat and our credibility as a nation, as the work to help other countries

create order, the first priority will be that america puts its own fiscal house in order. i really cannot emphasize to you enough how imperative this is. people all over the world are looking to the united states for leadership. we are known as the indispensable nation for good reason. no nation has more opportunity to advance the cause of democracy, no nation is as committed to the cause of human rights as we are. but to protect our nation and make good on our promises as well as to live up to our ideals and meet the crisis of this moment, it is urgent that we show people and the rest of the world that we can get our business done in an effective and timely way. it is difficult enough, but i

will tell you, it becomes impossible or near impossible if we replace our credibility and leverage with gridlock and dysfunction. i have heard it in my trips and secretary clinton has heard it in her trips. more than ever, foreign policy is economic policy. the world is competing for resources and global markets. every day that goes by where america is uncertain about engaging in that arena or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, i'm willing to

demonstrate our resolve, it is a day in which would weaken our nation itself. my plea is that we can summon across party lines without partisan diversions and economic patriotism, which recognizes that american strength and prospects abroad depends on american strength and results at home. it is hard to tell the leadership of the number of countries that they have to deal with the imf, balance their budgets, create economic order where there is none if we do not provided for ourselves. it is also imperative that in implementing president obama's vision for the world, as the end more than a decade of war, that we joined together to augment our message to the world. president obama and every one of us here knows that american foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployment alone. we cannot allow the extraordinary good that we do to save in change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role that we have had to play since september 11. a role that was thrust upon us. american foreign-policy is defined by food security, energy security, monetary assistance,

the fight against disease and the push for development, as much as it is by any single counterterrorism initiative. and it must be. it is defined by leadership. speaking out for the prisoners in north korea or millions of refugees in displaced persons or victims of human trafficking. it is defined by keeping faith with all of our troops who sacrificed to secure afghanistan. america lives up to her values when we give voice to the voiceless. i share with the president the conviction that it is equally imperative that we assert a new role in the world of increasing failed and failing states. burgeoning populations of young

people hungry for jobs, opportunity, individual rights, and freedom are rebelling against years of disenfranchisement and humiliation. a fruit vendor in tunisia who ignited the arab awakening wanted dignity and respect. he wanted to sell his fruit without corruption and abuse. that is what led him to self- immolate. the youth of tahrir square represented a generational the thirst for opportunity and individual participatory rights of governance, not a religious movement. the developed world counting more to meet the challenge and responsibility of these aspirations. with the help of all the members of this committee, i am

determined to help president obama meets this moment. the world is well aware that we face a number of immediate danger is challenges, particularly in the middle east and south central asia. given our extraordinary interest in non-proliferation. we must resolve the questions surrounding iran's nuclear program.

the president has made a definitive. we will do what we must to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapon. i repeat here today -- our policy is not containment. it is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance. this administration, working with congress and an unprecedented international coalition, has put into place crippling sanctions on iran. mr. chairman, you have been a leader in that effort. president obama has stated again

and again -- and i want to emphasize this -- he and i prefer a diplomatic resolution to this challenge. i will work to give diplomacy every effort to succeed. but no one should mistake are resolved to reduce the nuclear threat. nearly 42 years ago, chairman fulbright first gave me the opportunity to testify before this committee during a difficult and divided time for our country. today, i cannot help but recognize that the world itself then was in many ways simpler, divided as it was along cold war antagonisms. today's world is more complicated than anything we have experienced. from the emergence of china, to the arab awakening, inextricably linked economic, health, environmental and demographic issues, proliferation, poverty, pandemic disease, refugees, conflict on going in afghanistan, entire populations and face struggling with the demands of modernity, and the accelerating pace of technological innovation and shifting power from a nation states to individuals. with the end of the cold war, henry kissinger pointed out -- "none of the most important countries which must build a new world order have had any experience with the multistate system that is emerging. never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions,

or on so global a scale. nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic balance of power system with a global democratic opinion and exploiting technology of the contemporary period." that was written in 1994. it may be more relevant today. this is really a time for american leadership, a time for fresh thinking, a time to cross party lines. a time to find ways to work together to maximize the impact of all of america's resources, including the great resource of this committee and the united states senate. if i am confirmed, one of the first things i intend to do is to sit down with senator menendez an senator corker and invite all the members of this committee to come together at a time when there is no interruption and we can talk about how we can have a

constructive dialogue. even as we pride ourselves in the separation of powers and the unique oversight role the committee plays, the challenges in the world are so enormous that we would do our country a disservice if we did not identify the ways it can help each other confronts a unique set of questions globally. if you confirm me, i would take office as secretary proud that the senate is in my blood, but equally proud that so, too, is the foreign service. my father's work under presidents, both democrats and republicans, it took me and my siblings around the world for a personal journey that brought home the sacrifices and the commitment the men and women of the foreign service make every day on behalf of america. i wish everyone in the country could see and understand firsthand the devotion, loyalty, and amazingly hard and often dangerous work that our diplomats on the front lines do for our nation.

theirs is a service which earns our country an enormous return on our investment. i'll be proud and honored to represent them and i will work hard to augment our public diplomacy so that the story is told at home and abroad. everyone on this committee knows well the road ahead is tough. i believe this is deeply that global leadership is a strategic imperative for america. it is not a favor we do for other countries. it amplifies our voice and extends our reach. it is the key to jobs, the fulcrum of our influence, and it matters. it really matters to the daily lives of americans. it matters that we get this moment right for america and it matters that we get it right for

the world. one discussion that i look forward to beginning with you, my colleagues, and with our country, is about the commitment that we make in our foreign affairs budget. less than 1% of the entire budget of the government. at a time when the world is getting smaller, our economy depends on its relationship with every other country in the world's comment we face a more global markets at any time in our history. not just in my briefings at the state department, but in my conversations with business leaders and in my trips to crisis areas, to war zones, refugee camps, and in some of the poorest countries on earth, i've been reminded of the importance of the work our state department does to protect and advance america's interests and do the job of diplomacy and a dangerous world. i think there is more that can be done to advance our economic capacity and interest. in this debate and in every endeavor, i pledge to work closely with this committee.

not just because it will be my responsibility, but because i will not be able to do this job effectively without your involvement and your ideas going forward. thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i know there is a lot of ground to cover. >> [inaudible] [indiscernible]

>> when i first came to washington and testified, i was testifying as part of a group of people who came here to have their voices heard. that is what this place is about. i think the woman was voicing her concerns about that part of the world. senator mccain, you were just there. you were in a refugee camp. people measure what we do. in a way, that is a good exclamation point to my testimony. i know there is a lot of ground to cover. i know we can do better, but we are having a good dialogue. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your very thoughtful presentation. we welcome all of the family and we thank you for your commitment as well. obviously, it is a commitment of family as well to the service that senator kerry will provide as secretary of state.

i think we all appreciate and embrace your offer of an engagement. we look forward to that. having come from the senate, i know we will appreciate your understanding of this institution and its importance of the committee. we embrace that offer and look forward to that moment. let me start off with iran. in the last 13 months, congress has signed three major sets of sanctions against iran. they have been tremendously effective in decreasing oil revenues. however, iran remains defiant, entrenched in its nuclear weapons ambitions. it has not slowed its enrichment activities.

iran has conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, to which it denies iaea entry. iran has more than doubled the number of centrifuges at its facility, which is buried deep inside a mountain. a country with peaceful ambitions does not encourage uranium in defiance of u.n. security council resolutions. it does not fail to disclose its operations or hide inside a mountain. mr. secretary -- senator -- [laughter] >> i thought this could be quick. >> i have a sense of clairvoyance. in this respect, many of the sanctions are overseen by the department of state in terms of

enforcement. it is crucial that the enforcement can bring an agreement with iran under your leadership. will the department be committed to the full enforcement of the sanctions passed by the congress and the efforts to ensure the adherence to the other nations by the sanctions? >> yes. it has dropped by about 80%. other nations have been cooperative at reducing their dependence on iranian oil. there is a clear indicator of the impact these are having. the congress deserves credit, together with the administration. >> in that respect, while the president said options are on the table, we hope the sanctions drive us to a successful conclusion.

what would be the basic parameters efforts in terms of enrichment capacity? what would you seek as part as in the agreement? >> compliance with the requirements of the iaea and the u.n. resolutions. it would be totally inappropriate for me to begin to negotiate with myself and the committee with respect to how they would come into compliance or what would be required. it is going to be imperative that they come into full compliance and there are several ways and went to we might be able to get there. the president has made it clear that he is prepared to engage in bilateral efforts and hopefully, if there is a

negotiation going on for the next meeting, everybody is a very hopeful that we can make some progress on the diplomatic front. i would say this to the iranians, they have continually professed the peacefulness of their program. it is not hard to prove a peaceful program. other nations have done that, and do it every day. it takes intrusive inspections, it takes living up publicly arrived at standards. everybody understands what they are. the allies have made it clear it and that includes a very powerful entities.

people who have been supportive of iran in other ways at times. china, russia, they have made it clear that we're all united in this standard and that we are looking for the full compliance. the process itself has to flesh out the details. the iranians need to understand that there is no other agenda here. if there program is peaceful, they can prove it. that is what we are seeking. >> let me move to afghanistan. president karzei was here with president obama and they announced a series of agreements that would ultimately, as we move in that transition, we would have the largest civilian mission in the world in afghanistan. can you articulate what you believe the administration's and goals are in afghanistan? what metrics would you use to guide our continued presence? achieving development goals or

will the mission be guided by success in counterterrorism? >> the mission is a twofold mission, mr. chairman. it is to turn over responsibility to the afghan forces, for them to be able to assume responsibility for security, which is slated to begin in earnest in the spring. present karzei moved that date up himself and has asked for it to be accelerated. it is the judgment of general allen and others that we are on target to be able to meet a more rapid rate of turnover. that would mean our troops in the near term, sometime this year, will not be in the lead

and will not be the ones taking the brunt of any kind of activities, offensive activities. the second purpose is to maintain a capacity to prevent the kind of terrorism which took us there in the first place. there will be a counterterrorism mission that will continue. president obama has been very clear about the fact that the counterterrorism mission will continue beyond 2014. the training will probably continue beyond 2014. there will be some measure of engagement, but the effort is to have the afghans in the lead, continued training of the forces, and an enduring partnership with afghanistan, and support an afghan-led reconciliation if it is possible.

obviously, the strategy is to have a sufficient capacity with any ansf that if it is not possible, the government of afghanistan is still sustained. >> finally, the western hemisphere, 2013 will be a year of great change in the western hemisphere, particularly in latin america. the impending change of leadership in venezuela will have a ripple effect on the political and economic effects. the newly elected president of mexico was talking about refocusing his bilateral relationship, emphasizing economic cooperation. public security questions throughout the region, the desire of the region to engage in more critical agenda. it would be my hope that upon your confirmation, your leadership with consider more strategic level approaches to the region. taking advantage of changing political tides and opportunities to enhance multilateral efforts on counterterrorism, narcotics trafficking, opening up new markets, and a commitment to our democracy programs throughout the region. can you briefly talk to me about your views and a vision as it relates to what i think is a new and momentous opportunity?

>> i agree with you, mr. chairman. it is an opportunity that is staring at us and i hope that we can build on what secretary clinton has done. in order to augment our efforts

in that region. you've had the initiative working with mexico that has been increased efforts on anti- narcotics, anti-violence. there has been the central american security initiative. energy initiatives with brazil. there has been development assistance in guatemala, honduras. energy initiatives with brazil. and energy climate initiatives. but there have been some out liar states that have not been as much a part or as cooperative. we all know who they are. depending on what happens in venezuela, there may be an opportunity for trenches in there. i would hope that bolivia, ecuador, we could make progress.

one of the great stories of latin america is colombia. i remember when working on the western hemisphere subcommittee, there had recently in been an assassination of 13 members of the supreme court in one room in colombia. the presidential candidates were assassinated. you could not run for office. the president stepped up at a critical moment and began the process of rescuing that nation. president santos now is doing an amazing job. we have created a greater economic relationship bypassing the trade agreement. we have to build on that. that is an example for the rest of latin america as to what awaits them if we can induce people to make a better set of choices. there are some other things that have contributed to the

gap between our relationship with some of those other question -- countries. i would do it and the close consultation with you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. there are some ways to improve our efforts in latin america. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was touched by your opening comments. i think you have led a life that brought you to this moment. i am happy for you that you will be able to express yourself in this way as secretary of state and for your family. i am thrilled that you are in a position i know you have long for and think you can make a major difference.

i as ked you 73 questions in advance. thank you for your diligence. i know it took a lot of time. the president has nominated someone for secretary of defense. we all will meet with him and his hearing will be next week he was part of a group called global 0. for those that care about our nuclear arsenal, some of the things that brought offered in this report are disconcerting. typically, the defense department presses for weaponry and making our country is safe. the state department presses for nuclear arms agreements and

reductions. in the event this person is confirmed, that balance will not be there. you and i spent a lot of time on the treaty. you let me be involved in the ratification. i am wondering if there is something you might say to me in that sees our future in a way with that combination of these two people, something you can say to assure me about our nuclear posture in the future and the role he will play in that regard. >> absolutely. i know chuck hagel. i think he is a strong, patriotic former senator and he will be a strong secretary of defense.

i have dealt with him and and number of forays. he has been head of the atlantic council, some of the things and efforts to color senator hagel's approach on some of these things cannot do justice. i am going to come to it. i think it is important to think about it. when that initiative came out and we began to hear about the people who said let's get no nuclear-weapons, i scratch my head. i said how is that going to work? i find it hard to think how you can get down to a number in

today's world. henry kissinger, jim baker, james schlesinger, many others have all agreed with that as a goal for the world. it is an aspiration. we should always be aspirational. but it is not something that can happen in today's world nor could any leader today sit here or in any other chair and promote the notion that we should be cutting down our deterrent levels before inadequate levels to maintain deterrence. the military has strong views about what that is. we have cut down some 1500 now. there is talk of going down to a lower number. i think it is possible to get their, if you have commensurate levels of inspections, verification, and guarantees

about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program. i know you are deeply invested in that component. we can get to some of that may be later in the hearing. i believe we have to maintain that. i don't think senator hegel is sitting there or will go to the defense department and be a proponent. this is talking about conflict resolution, changes that have to take place the that the society's -- societies. it is worth aspiring to. and we are lucky if we will get there in however many centuries the way we are going. >> i appreciate your opening

comments about the issues we face. for a moment i wished you were nominated for secretary of treasury. i do appreciate those comments and the ones you just made. you have been a senator for 29 years. the president was under your tutelage when he came in as a junior member of this committee. >> i think he would object to being under anybody's tutelage. >> i will let him call and object. i will just say you have strong opinions, heartfelt feelings about what we should be doing as a nation but that the foreign relations. in the meetings you have sat together, secretary clinton alluded to differences she had as it relates to north africa and how we deal with al qaeda. have you been able to talk through some of those issues?

what has been the relationship? do you see any major differences in your view of the world and the once the president has laid out? >> the president has purposefully and i have purposely kept away from any deep discussions during the nominating process, partly because he had not time, and i have not had time. we do intend to sit down next week. i look forward to having that conversation with him. >> you spent a lot time with assad in syria, as many of us have from time to time. you tried to move him more

towards western alliance. i know he saw himself as that bridge between iran and thus -- and us. things have taken a different turn to that time. was there anything about those negotiations or discussions and yet taken away -- that you have taken away, that will inform you as you move ahead? >> the answer is yes. sort of reinforces the notion that sometimes there are moments when you may be able to get something done in foreign policy and it is a moment some how can that does not get a seat, you miss major opportunities -- does not get seized, you miss major opportunities. president assad said to me i

have five front thousand kids who turned 18 every year. and i do not have a place to cut them. i did not have jobs for them. i need to change what is happening here. clearly thinking down the road, he wanted to find some way to reach out to the west and see if there was some kind of accommodation. history caught up to us. that never happened. and it is now moot because he has made a said the judgment that are inexcusable -- made a

set of judgments that are inexcusable. the time is ticking. you saw the comments of the special envoy of russia who said it seems the opposition was moving and we have seen the exodus of a certain number of russians lifted out of syria. i did the process is moving in a way that now makes that age and history -- i think the process is moving in a way that now makes that ancient history. >> thank you free answers here and your interest in advance. i need your confirmation will be speedy. i look forward to having the same relationship we have had in the past. i may call you sir in the future. thank you for being here and taking this responsibility. >> thank you very much fear you have been a gentleman in all our dealings and candid. i appreciate that. -- thank you very much. you have been a gentleman in all of our dealings and candid. i appreciate that. >> i sat near you in a couple of committees. commerce committee, many years. i have worked with you on climate issues, women's issues. i just feel you are the right person for this moment. many foreign policy experts and historians have written that the low and the sad status of

women around the world is hurting entire regions of the world to achieving democracy and economic growth. you have covered a lot of ground in your opening statement you did not get into this area which is of concern to a number of us here so i have a couple of questions on that. the state department has saw to protect the rights of women and girls in afghanistan, to end the use of rape as a weapon of war in the cond -- in the congo

and to ensure women play a meaningful role as new government's and political structures take shape in the middle east and north africa. if confirmed, will you ensure that the position of ambassador at large for global women's issues is retained and that office is effectively resources? >> yes. >> senator andrew and i wrote a bill to expand its college soccer -- scholarship opportunities for women to the afghanistan. we dedicated this bill to mulala. we call for an expanded college a program in pakistan for disadvantaged young women.

i know you have not seen the legislation. would you commit to me to work with us and if you think it is well done, it did meet your standards, would you help us getting into here? >> absolutely. let me just say that secretary clinton and her appointee have done an outstanding job. i have made a priority on the committee. you chair a subcommittee that includes women's issues under that. we had a trafficking hearing. which i thought broke new ground. secretary clinton has put a serious focus in this department on human trafficking. i intend to continue that.

what you're talking about with respect to women and girls in south africa, guatemala, other parts of the world, women have stepped up as peacemakers. women have made the difference in many of these instances with respect to the security of those communities. the attitude of the state, its willingness to reach out of it went to afghanistan, -- to reach out. when we went to afghanistan, there were several thousand kids in school and no growth. today, there are 9 million kids in school and pick% are greuel. >> the reason i pressed specifics is to send a message to these women and girls around the world that it will not be forgotten. -- that they will not be forgotten. insuring women are at the table at the peace process.

it sounds simple but i have met with many women from afghanistan who are devastated that there are not enough women sitting at the table. you have made the point that women in many of these places are the peacemakers. i am asking if you intend to commit to the continued implementation of a national action plan on women, peace, and security.

>> i did. i read last night that president obama issued to that. i think it is important. with respect to afghanistan, the administration has made it clear -- the commitment that if there is in negotiation with the taliban, one of the conditions is they have to give up any association with al qaeda. with respect to this issue, they must commit to respect the constitution of afghanistan and the current status of women and girls within their society. >> you have been a supporter of the convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. it is a tough issue. i want to make sure you continue to support the ratification. >> the answer is yes. i look forward to meeting with the committee probably so we can talk about treaties and

america's interest. >> i think there could be some reservation that we could agree on that would resolve some of the underlying current of this agreement. we should move forward on that. last question is about the keystone xl pipeline. how would you ensure any decision takes into consideration the potential impact on water and air quality and mitigates any increases in the carbon pollution issue? >> there is a statutory process with respect to the review of the fall to the state department and elsewhere. that is currently ongoing. i have already checked into it. it is under way. it will not long before that comes across my desk. at that time, i will make the appropriate judgments. we are responsible for the environmental review. there are specific standards that have to be met.

i will review them to make sure they are complete. >> thank you. thank you so much, mr. chairman. and say how much of the court -- how much i look forward to casting. the casting >> thank you. >> i want you to be assured that vicki and i will care for your idaho property when you're out traveling. >> liu come with the property if i come back -- will you , the property if i come back?

[laughter] >> we'll see. i want to talk about the relationship with russia and the arms control agreement we have had. you made a statement that he would not be able to come before this committee and recommend new arms control measures until compliance and verification issues regarding existing agreements were fully settled. we have sat through some classified briefings. i did not want to get into details we should i get into but i would like your thoughts on where we are regarding compliance and verification. >> senator, i appreciate your concern about this. we have had a lot of

conversations with the ranking member and senator kyle. -- kyl. it is fair to say we have made significant progress towards a full funding of the money that was committed. i think it was about $85 million over 10 years. i went and reviewed the amount of money that is now scheduled over the 10 years. it is slightly below that. but it is not way below it. there is no undermining of the fundamentals of the commitment. and there is a 5% increase this year over last year and probably one of the few parts of the budget that has grown. the think it was about $6 billion last year. the first year, and have the

the think it was about $6 billion last year. $7 billion, or $8 billion. the first year, and have the full amount of funding than the next year, and fell off by about .2 course something to that effect. in the outgoing years, it is slightly below where it was but the folks involved say this is a in no way diminishing our stockpile efficiency. i think we're on track. what we need to do is sit down with the budget folks and work through what will happen here. what i want to emphasize -- it is important for any administration to keep faith with the commitments it makes to senators, particularly in the

course of an agreement to a treaty. i do not think we are so far off that any senator could sit there and say someone has not kept faith. it was also an agreement in their should be negotiations with this respect to the production of tactical nuclear weapons. -- reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. that dialogue is taking place. hopefully we can get the relationship with russia back to replace -- to a place. it would be naive of me to sit here and not acknowledge to my colleagues that slid backwards a bit in the last couple years.

with the most recent decision of russia with respect to adoptions, we have some ground to try to make up. what i do not want to do is prejudice that possibility here today or in the next days. i would like to see if we can find some way to cooperate. we need their help with respect to syria. russia has held on a number of -- helped on a number of different things that are critical to us. people should not overlook them. the day cooperate on the treaty itself -- they did cooperate on the treaty itself and the p5 plus one. they are cooperating today in that inittiative. they have cooperated on the sanctions and with respect to the pntr trade and wto. it is fair to say everybody here knows they warned us and

said if you do x, y, or z, we may respond and we have gotten into that back-and-forth. we will have to work our way through it. i look forward to working with you. >> i appreciate your candor on the acknowledgement of slippage. having been a member of this committee, i know you have a deep appreciation for the constitutional process. there are a lot of us that are increasingly concerned about this talk regarding executive agreements as opposed to treaties negotiated by the executive branch. can you give us your view on matters regarding executive agreements? >> every administration is history. -- in history, republican and

democrat alike have entered into executive agreements. >> you agree the better process would be to submit to this committee first? >> of what it depends on the subject matter and the scope and whether or not it falls under a traditional treaty or an executive agreement purview. i don't want to comment one way or the other without the specific situation in front of me. i'm confident the president is committed to upholding the constitution. there is no better way to guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the president's desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly nullified or mollified if we could find a way to cooperate on a treaty or on the

broader issues that face the nation. there is a lot of frustration out there, that some of the automatic ideological restraints that prevented the majority from being able to express their voice is restrain people can push people and in a way to consider other ways to get things done. >> that is what concerns us. the fact that it is ok to do this through the regular order if it gets done to rebut and -- done. i feel strongly that that is not the appropriate way to do it. the founding fathers did not they do this if it is not convenient. >> i would agree with you. i am not suggesting that is the standard.

what am suggesting -- there are times around here when in recent days only, where certain arguments that are not necessarily based either on fact or science or anything except point of view of some outside entity, have prevented certain things from being able to be done to . -- done. i think what we should do is sit down and have a discussion about what the facts are. see if we could arrive to agree there is some truth about something. if there is some jurors, may be -- there is some truth, maybe there is a way for us to do it. in keeping with the regular order, the way you put it.

i understand the frustration that leads people to think about it. i will comment on it when it is relevant in any particular instance. >> it is been a pleasure to serve with you in the united states senate. thank you your extraordinary record of public service and -- service, from your military days to service here in the senate. i remember your chairmanship of the small business committee. the same energy brought to the chairmanship of this committee, you brought to small businesses. i applaud you for your willingness to continue to serve our nation. >> i am taking it for the red sox, i am taking it for the patriots.

if it is a standard here which -- here is which team you root for, i am screwed. >> you will have to show some of your diplomacy here. secretary clinton confidant and -- advanced the integration of our national security bastion. recognizing that they are interrelated and to our national -- into our national security needs. if we are going to have a country reliable -- that is reliable, we need a sustainable economy. the country need to respect the human rights of its citizens. that has been the hallmark of what we tried to move forward. we have also learned that american interests are not served by giving aid to a country where that money is used

to funnel correct leaders carried -- corrupt leaders. i serve as a member of the helsinki commission. we recognize the importance of investment on human-rights issues. i appreciate the comment he made -- you made in your opening statements concerning this -- the comments you made in your opening statements concerning this. the gender equity issues. advanced american values and human rights on a bilateral and multilateral basis. from protecting children where traffic to dealing with gender issues, these are important for national security.

these are american values. i want to give you an opportunity to express your priorities for these issues. >> let me begin by expressing my respect for your leadership on the helsinki commission. we have done as much if not more -- you have done as much, if not more than any chairman i can remember on our committee. i think you have been just super but that the year -- superb in your division. -- vision. i appreciate it. we are the indispensable nation

with respect to this. the levels of corruption in some places has grown beyond anything i've seen in the 29 years -- in my 29 years. my 29th year on this committee. i'm troubled in terms of what it means for people's rights and abilities in countries. there is not any continent that does not see some kind of issue with respect to that. i think the united states has a fundamental obligation that comes from the definition of who we are as a nation. it comes mar on struggles to keep faith with -- it comes from our own struggles. to keep faith with those who are struggling. we're finding different efforts in parts of the world.

we are doing things that make a difference with respect to attract -- to those rights. -- we're funding many efforts in different parts of the world to help develop -- whether it is global health, or education, we are doing things that are going to make a difference in people's lives with respect to those rights. usaid gets criticized. there have been obvious problems with our relationship of the past. committee did some superb work putting out a report last year with respect to that. i think we can do more than we are doing today. >> i appreciate that. you had a discussion on russia. we have seen some slippage

since the breakup of the cold war ending. you mentioned kissinger's comment. we have seen slippage in russia with their human-rights hopper tensions. -- with their human rights tensions. slippage regarding our allies in france, with hungary. slippage of in the ukraine with imprisoning their opposition. our relationship to other countries can be mature enough where we can build strong alliances but still raise critical concerns, particularly if they violate commitment they made. we will make a high priority to

their commitment to live up to the basic human rights of their citizens. >> i have occasionally wrestled with that when we have a primary objective and try to get that done but i have never hesitated in any visit to raise human- rights concerns. i will continue to do that as an esoteric clinton has. -- secretary clinton has. she has been diligent about it, and i intend to continue. >> let me mention, you mention darfur. the crisis was so severe. we still have concerns in the southern and blue nile. south sudan still has problems. burma, there has not been any progress made. i hope you will make these areas where there are humanitarian crises a highest priority to protect the safety of the people that lived in

these areas. >> i will and i intend to do that. the president will continue to -- with an appointment of a special ambassador to sudan. we have just had an ambassador there who did a superb job. i was there myself during the course of the referendum on the independence. i have met with president many times. -- their president many times. and people underneath bashir. my hope is that we can get the status or components of the cpa that were not fulfilled finally fulfilled. glued nile -- blue nile -- the bombing, starvation taking place, the data some ways, --

displacement. in some ways, darfur has slipped back words. -- backwards. they need to be held accountable. this also needs to show greater -- the south needs to show greater determination and better government. we have our work cut out for us with respect to both. i promise you it will remain a focus. >> thank you. >> senator rubio progress thank you. senator, congratulations on your nomination. we're having this debate to do this country between -- we cannot solve every problem in the world. no single nation can afford it. on the other hand, america is indispensable to foreign policy. the world is a dangerous place when america is not leading. the fundamental issues that confront the world today require college and of nations to confront it. -- coalitions of nations to

confront it. the only nation on earth that confirm these coalitions and lead them is us. it is not the united nations or any of these multilateral organizations. the central issue of foreign policy today is his talent -- this balance between making sure we're not trying to do more than the canned and ensuring we are not doing less than we should. there constantly is the debate on foreign aid. debate on foreign aid. and there has been the perception created the foreign aid is 28% of our budget when it is a very small percentage. our foreign aid has to make sense. we need to make sure it is furthering our national interests. but i hope he would help me with -- you alluded to president obama's vision for the world. i have struggled to understand without vision is.

-- what that vision is. russia has been mentioned. the situation has deteriorated there. but what to recapture some the cold war statute -- after they had to recall the best way is to be confrontational with us. the u.s., once we got involved, in libya, and got involved than the early stages then turned the rest of it over to our allies who cannot have the capability to bring the conflict to a quick conclusion and as a result created a weak government. we repeated that in this area -- in syria. as iran's best france, and was -- friend, grand central station

for terrorists. in our national interest to help an opposition foreman organize itself. we have been so disorganized in syria that now we are at a time where the opposition, when they win, are just as angry at us as they once were with russia and other nations. we go to latin america where in 2009 the and minish fishing condemned what happened in honduras -- the administration condemned what happened at the the honduras. -- in honduras. we move to the middle east where israel has been concerned. whether they admit oit pubicly olicly or not. there were more focused on the palestinian issue but as the biggest issue in the middle east. iran, the people took to the streets as the defense of the

principles we say we stand for and the president says we will not interfere in their sovereignty. that demoralized opposition. north korea announced they are developing in weapon that can reach united states. -- a weapon that can reach the united states. i think the bush administration was wrong to remove north korea from the list of states alters of terrorism. -- sponsors of terrorism. i hope we will reverse that. china and the conflict going on throughout the region during -- region. china is increasingly aggressive about their territorial claims. in their neighbors are looking to the united states as a counterbalance. a -- if the sequester goes through, what are we going to pivot with? these are the fundamental issues we face. as you sit with the president and help him form a vision for the world, what advice are you going to give him in the terms of what our role should be?

>> that is a very broad and comprehensive question. >> you have two minutes to answer it. >> i could say to you let's sit down and talk about it and will get together and go through it but let me give -- i want to do that, but let me say a few things to you about this. as you know, there was a debate in congress about whether or not anything should have been done in libya. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was

very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways.

people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about libya, i was not suggesting the u.s. should have invaded. we did -- have we extended that, the, that and it sooner. -- that, the conflict would have ended a lot sooner. a shorter conflict would have led to a government that would have been stronger. >> honestly, it might have toward might not have. -- might have or it might not have. gadhafi cut deals with all the tribes.

they created their peers a power structure which is the reason you had a revolution. the religionm -- revolution saw to give people more time in chains. -- sought to give more people opportunity and change. it will take time. it took us a while. to the constitution, all we would do a lot of people, -- went through a lot of people, including a civil war. we need to be awful about the -- thoughtful about the history and culture and nature of the places we are dealing with -- we need to be thoughtful about the history and culture and nature of the places we are dealing with. you cannot just take an american or western concept and plunk it down and say, this is going to work. all i am advocating for it to be thoughtful about this. there is a struggle going on

for the mines -- minds of people into many parts of the world. i think we can do a better job of galvanizing people around the values and ideas we have organized ourselves around. we have to do it in a lot of giveaways. -- different ways. i did not have all the answers to this but there is any media, -- a new media, a new -- there are alternative means of communication bringing people together. there are other avenues. i was privileged to speak daniell a couple years ago where there were 68 -- to speak at yale a couple years ago where there were 68 people came and 68 evangelical their --

there. -- 68 evangelics who werals who were there. this meeting tried to find the commonality of the abrahams. those of the kinds of things we need to explore. we cannot afford high diplomacy defined by troops or drones or confrontation. we have to define the thomas say that she's -- the diplomacy that achieves understanding through other kinds of initiatives. we will all have to face this. egypt is a quarter of the arab world.

it is critical to everything we aspire to see happen within the middle east. protection of sinai, security, the development of that part of the world with respect to an economy that is open and competitive and based on rule of law. how are we going to do that? when you have 60% of the population under 30. 50% is under the age of 21. and it is growing. if they did not find jobs, if they deny get educated, if we do -- don't get jobs, if they on't get educated, if we do not do something, all of us at the end of the developed world, including china, russia, south korea, brazil, mexico, those developed countries that have the capacity will have to come together and about this. -- and think about this.

everybody is affected. i think that is a challenge for all of us. that is my response to a very big question that is a legitimate questions. we ought to sit down and work on this over the days ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator kerry tom hines thrilled to be here -- senator kerry, i am in built to be here. -- kerry, i am thrilled to be here. i cannot think of anyone better to continue the efforts of the current administration. thank you for being willing to take on this task. that may well in your family -- let me welcome your family. let me just say i look forward to casting level -- casting my vote in support of u.s. --

you as secretary of state and the also join the in defending the red sox and the patriots. >> finally. thank you. >> i want to echo the concern about continuing to support an agenda that urges equal rights and opportunities for women around the world. i think about if we had a situation in many of the conflict areas we are facing now where women share the same equality and opportunity that the men do in those areas, that we would be facing a very different challenge. i also want to go back. you mentioned syria and being in what appears to be the final period of assad rule. one of the issues we're facing there is what happened to the --

happens to the chemical weapons should assad fall. yesterday at the hearing on bank gotti, there was -- at the hearing on benghazi, there were references to the weapons that have now fallen into the hands of terrorists in africa. in algeria, we saw some of thos e weapons in the recent terrorist attacks there. when i ask in general about this issue, he suggested it will require an international effort to secure these weapons when assad falls. i wonder if you could talk about how you view that international effort coming together and what role the secretary of state should play in that. >> the president's policy is that if we have evidence they have used or are using them or

about to use them, if they lose control over them or move them in any some of it away, that -- significant way, that will change the calculation. the administration is drawing up plans am working with neighbors in the region. i cannot go into those today because i'm not read in on them yet. i'm not briefed in exactly on what those contingencies are. i just know that they are making them and they are deeply concerned about it. >> should we feel some confidence that russia and china might join in to an international effort on chemical weapons? should there be concerned about what happens to those weapons? >> i just do not know about the details of the plants. i do know they have expressed public concerns about that. there were conversations with the russians with the first -- when the first indicators took

place about potential of movement. the russians apparently were deeply concerned and they also weighed in at that time. there is serious concern everywhere that those weapons not fall into the wrong hands. clucks -- >> chris christie mention the work you did as the chair of the small business committee -- you mentioned the word treated as the chair of the small business committee. we have tried to promote business advocacy abroad. i led a trade mission to india about a year and a half ago with businesses from new hampshire. it talked about how important a was to have the support atoms -- support from state officials in india as they were looking to establish those business relationships. can you talk about how you might continue that i commit

this is -- and commit that this is something he would be focused on? >> i think for a policy is increasingly economic policy upheld -- i think foreign policy is increasingly economic policy. the state department historically used to have a foreign commercial service. in 1979, it slipped away. i think that's something we ought to be doing in a very pertinent to get away. -- significant way. obviously working with the treasury, agriculture. ag has enormous amount of interest abroad. the congress department does, the treasury department does. there is much more we can do to augment our indeed with the --

engagement with the private sector and their desires and needs abroad. when i was in hong kong and number of years ago, i met with foreign commercial service people there. we had 3 people there and they said they were overwhelmed. they have no ability to be able to marry rsb's from china to companies commensurate with much smaller countries. france was there, germany was there. england, others were much more aggressive in their promotion of their companies. that is the world we're living in today. we have to be much more aggressive in of that respect. i view it as investing. it returns on an vestment many times over. -- on investment many times over. i want to get in and i think there is a lot we can do. >> thank you.

but western balkans, with some much conflict gone across the middle east and northern africa, we forget we were involved in the conflict in the western balkans. there had been tremendous progress that has been made in that area but we are still -- but we still have a stalemate over a domestic donna -- over in macedona, we still have a country that aspire to -- ountries that aspire to ascendancy in the eu. progress there will continue american leadership. i hope we will continue to work again to the region to ensure -- in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. thank you for your leadership of the european foreign

subcommittee. i look forward to working with a. -- you. >> senator kerry, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement in response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience. i would've enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i will enjoy working with you as secretary of state. these are complex issues, these are dangerous times. i grew up helping politics at the water's edge and was true. -- hoping that that maxim that politics ends at the water's edge was true. i believe we share the same goals. we want a secure, prosperous america. i think that starts being open and honest with each other.

i hate to go back to yesterday's news and by yesterday when i was asking a relatively simple question, secretary clinton's reaction was "what difference at this point does it make?" trying to get to the truth of the matter in benghazi. i did not have a chance to clause the question. -- asked the question. it matters a great deal that the american people get the truth. i think they have the right to be told the truth. i think they have the right to know what happens. it makes a big difference whether or not the american people have the confidence that the president and the administration is being truthful with them. my question is, do you agree with that? are you going to work with me ?las

to get some trying daylight between me and secretary clinton, that is not going to happen today. i do not think that was the question. i think if your question is, should the american people get the truth and does it matter, the lawyer clinton would say yes. and i say yes. but not think that is what she was referring to. i think what she was referring to was the questions of the sequencing and timing of how particular information came in with respect to the talking points and the public statements that remain. there was a difference of opinion. my judgment as to how you saw that versus how she saw that -- >> my point was, we could have avoided all this controversy by

making a couple phone calls. as chairman of the foreign relations committee, did you make any phone calls to those evacuees? >> early on -- i do not want to go back and we litigate the events that took place. -- re-litigate the events that took place. i made phone calls. >> how soon did you know that there were no protests? did you know that immediately? >> senator, the intel that i got and was told by people but there were no protests -- that there were no protests in benghazi, but there had been protests in

cairo. >> i understand that, but that was not the issue. is there a reason we would not have those department of state officials testifying before us, we can find out who knew what, when, actually get to the bottom of that? >> for the moment, i know that there is an fbi investigation going on because i personally called the fbi director and was debriefed by him and told that they're making progress, and that some things may or may not be right to take place in the not too distant future. >> i am going based on so we can get that behind us. but we can move beyond that. can you make that commitment to me? >> in all fairness, i do think we know what happened. it is very clear. were you at the briefing with the tapes? >> no.

>> there was a briefing with tapes which we all saw which made it crystal clear. we sat for several hours with or intel folks, who described to us precisely what we were seeing. we saw all of the events unfold. we had a very complete and detailed description. >> we would happen now because we have the reports. what we do not know is why we were misled. i am just looking to make sure that you will work with me so that we find of what the administration knew. -- out what the administration knew. >> when you say why we were misled, that implies an intent to actually mislead you somehow. i think there was a description in various talking points of that. >> i am asking, will you help us get to the bottom of why that

happened? clucks the state department will continue to cooperate, as it has -- the state department will continue to cooperate. >> i appreciate that commitment. you said foreign-policy is economic policy. i could not agree more. we must compete. i agree with senator corker. maybe we should have been up for an economic position here. and will utilize your position as secretary of state -- will utilize your position as secretary of state to try to get the president to work with us? i do not think we can continue to tax the american economy, it is about prioritizing spending. i am a fiscal conservative. but we have to get our spending

under control. will utilize your position to approach the president to work with us in good faith -- will you utilize your position to approach the president to work with us in good faith? >> i spent six months on the supercommittee. i put enormous amounts of hope and energy towards us getting a grand deal. there was a very hard line, not negotiating position that prevented us from being able to come to an agreement, which incidentally, we just came to. but we came to it with far less on the table and far less accomplished than we would have if we came to it six months or year ago. i certainly will weigh in on that to the degree that it has an impact on my ability to do my job and the ability of the state department to be able to do its job.

we cannot reduce the funding for some of these initiatives the we are engaged in without great cost to our ability to be able to help american business, help create jobs, and help strengthen our security in the world. it is in my interest to get this budget effort result, even though i will be negotiating other things. -- resolved, even though i will be negotiating other things. the require some compromise and reasonableness -- it requires a compromise and reasonableness on everyone pulls apart. -- everyone's part. >> i want to express my strong support of senator kerrey for your nomination to serve as our next secretary of state. to your family, welcome and as you for all you have done to service.ohn's i have deeply enjoyed serving

under you hear on the foreign relations committee the last two years. i chaired the africa subcommittee and had the opportunity from a close vantage point to watch as you have led the ratification of the new start treaty, as you personally intervened in diplomatic crises. i really look forward to working with you and some of the challenging issues that face our country and the world. let me start by referring back to something in number of senators have referred to, your opening statement in which you said ford policy is economic policy. i have been -- foreign-policy is an economic policy. i have been encouraged by your comments. ever the holds enormous progress. -- africa holds enormous progress.

it is our opportunity to advocate. i would be interested in how you see as successfully competing with china, which has a rapidly growing footprint across africa in both economic opportunities and our differing values agenda, and what difference that makes up going forward. -- : forward cargo -- going forward. >> one of the pleasures of having been chairman of the committee was watching individual senators pick their targets and go after them. senator isaacson was a terrific team with senator coats -- senator coot's when it came to africa.

whiteor lindsey graham, senato .ouse and little bi that kind of report and that kind of intervention has an impact. i know already from reports that what you did there have an impact with president marcy, had an impact on policy. -- president morsi, had an impact on policy. with respect to china and africa, china is all over africa. their buying of long-term contracts and minerals, you name it. -- on minerals, you name it.

there are some places where we are not in on the game. we have got to get it. -- get in. somebody is investing in their investment of time. we have to be prepared. what would bring to the table is frankly a lot more attractive than what a lot of other countries and bring to the table. people like to do business with american businesses. we're open, we're accountable. we have freedom of creativity and other kinds of things. if we can organize ourselves more effectively in this sector, we can win. when i say win, i do not mean in cold war terms. i mean in terms of business contracts, business opportunities, jobs for americans, ability to export and import. all these things and make a difference to what the average american pays for the goods they use in everyday life.

there is a lot of opportunity. >> you mentioned there is a three commercial for service officers in hong kong. there are only 10 on the entire continent of africa. where have already worked on the issue of poaching anacross a continent. -- we have already worked on the issue of poaching across the continent. on the trip that i just took with the senator mccain we visited a series of refugee camp -- syrian refugee camp and heard a very sharp feedback. the humanitarian aid we had supplied has not reached the people on the ground, has gone through damascus.

of the red cross has not gone through the syrian opposition council. more visiblye boar engaged? >> there is a discussion going on right now about other kinds of possibilities. i know that senator mccain cares about it. we need to change bashar assad's calculation. right now president assad does not think he is losing. the opposition thinks it is winning. that is not an equation that

allows you to reach some accommodation for transition. the goal of the obama administration, the goal of the international community, i think, is to affect some kind of orderly transition. it is complicated by the fact that now a second envoy has been engaged after coffee and non's efforts. -- kofi annan's efforts. the russians have indicated, and i've had personal conversations prior to being nominated as secretary with the prime minister, that indicated a russian a willingness to see president assad leave. they have a different sense of the and timing and manner of that.

if i am confirmed, i want to have the ability to take the temperature of these different players and a sense of where it is. but we have to increase the ability of the opposition -- strike that. we have to increase the readiness of president assad to see the die is cast, the handwriting is on the wall, to be willing to make the judgment here that will save lives and hold the state together in a transition period >> -- transition. >> very frankly also face a very narrow window to make a difference on the ground in support of the opposition. >> i hear you. you do not want to wind up with them blaming you. i get it. but do need to have some understanding of what step one

brings you. what is step two, what is step 3. there is not the clarity with this right now. -- a clarity with this right now. what i commit to do is sit with you guys as much as possible. let's sit with the administration, which i will then be a part of, and see how these equations work through as we go forward. and we have plenty of challenges. -- forward. >> we have plenty of challenges. thank you. >> i had the opportunity to travel with you if you times overseas and have seen the regard and respect that officials and other countries have for you and for your record and would you have done. -- what you have done. i think your well-suited for

this position. with regard to cuba, i felt perhaps differently than some of my colleagues on this panel that the best way to foster change and progress towards democracy is to allow travel, free travel of americans, to let them go as they wish. i do not think that is a weakness or any capitulation at all. but it is a way to show strength. i have often felt that if you want to get a tough policy with the castro brothers, we should force them to deal with spring break once or twice. [laughter] in all seriousness, this president has taken measures to allow more americans to travel freely. immelt you'll find ways to continue that and did you more

-- i hope you will find ways to continue that. with regard to the united nations, the epa was -- pa was granted admission into unesco and then into the full assembly. i think that is an impediment to renegotiations that have to happen. the general assembly has a habit of doing this over the years. we all remember in the 1970's, they designated the plo as the sole and authentic representative. i spent time in southern africa. they had designated one of the parties in namibia as the sole and authentic representative of the people. that did nothing but delayed meaningful negotiations between the parties that needed to happen. from your position of the state department, what measures will you take to ensure that our position is to deny funding to some of these u.n. organs, if

such recognition is made. i know there is some wiggle room for the administration to deal with that, but what is your position in that regard? how can you make sure that our interests are carried forward? >> i think the administration made this clear in its vote and public statements. we do not feel that unilateral steps are helpful on either side. they are not a substitute for the parties negotiating in resolving the issues. with respect to some of the funding on the collateral memberships, if you will, we have found that we're better able to actually protect against nefarious activity, and resolutions to attack israel --

we're able to negate that if we are participating. if we cease to pay the dues and take a different attitude, we lose the opportunity to protect our friends. i will emphasize that they are getting close to a line that would be very damaging. if there were any effort to take israel, for instance, or any other country, for instance the icc -- if there is an effort to invoke other power, that is the unilateral action that we would feel very strongly against ed see it as extremely counterproductive. -- and see it as extremely counterproductive. my prayer is that perhaps this can be a moment where we can reuse some kind of effort to get

the parties into a discussion that have a different track than what we have been on over the course of the last couple of years. i would like to reserve all the capacity to be able to do that. i am going to stop where what i have said, but unilateral efforts are not helpful. we oppose them. we do not think they are symbolic of other kinds of efforts that we need. we need real negotiation and results and progress garret. >> seeing the operations in afghanistan, you described it well in your opening statement. if week look back at -- if we and sawk at iraq

some of the building that was going on, in particular, planning for a more robust presence than we currently have, there are a lot of state department or embassy buildings that lay vacant now. i am wondering, what are we doing to ensure that we do not do the same thing in afghanistan and. what lessons are learned from iraq -- are we learning from iraq? we overbuilt there. there was a report on the news about that kind of thing. when can we do? what can we do with regard to the state department to insure that whatever presence we have -- i hope we do have a residual presence an agreement to go on to carry out the mission that you outlined-- right-sized?

>> that is a very good question. the state department has a specific law, a transition group that has drawn the lessons from iraq. it comes out of that experience. it is applying them to this transitional effort in afghanistan now. i am not sure with everything-- familiar with everything they have dug into. i know they are doing it. i know it exists. i think people are thinking very hard right now about what size footprint ought to exist.post the 2014-transition. let me make it clear that i think we have about 1000- something personnel in the embassy in iraq still. slightly less than 4000 contractors in iraq still. that is a pretty big footprint,

postwar. in afghanistan, we are pretty large. i intend to look at that closely, partly because there are deep security concerns that we understand post-benghazi and also because there is a question of what size foot prints you want in the aftermath. i can assure you a lot of qualified people who went through the iraq experience and they are taking the lessons and applying them to in afghanistan. he also assure at a future hearing down the road, we will dig into that a little more. >> great to see you in this capacity, what is really the threshold of a new chapter of your life of service. we are very happy to see you here today. i will not congratulate you, because we are still in the process, but i think that will be forthcoming.i am also grate

ful that theresa is here. you are my constituent, theresa. if you need something, i hope you call us.[laughter] >> she needs a vote for me. >> i think that will be forthcoming. a couple of issues i wanted to focus on two places with three questions. one is afghanistan, the second is pakistan.with regard to afghanistan, i wanted to ask you about -- the first question relates to president carter's i and the elections ahead of them. -- president karzai and the elections ahead of him. i had a chance to visit him with leader mcconnell and senator mccain. i asked him about the elections. also to ask him about my sexocod question. i wanted to get your sense of

where you see the elections go-- going, what efforts you can undertake to make sure they are free and fair because they become central to the next chapter in this transition. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised. her work on this has been exemplary. an amendment we got through the national defense authorization act which would require state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote to the security of afghan women and girls just by way of ionization, monitoring and responding to changes in women security. secondly, improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. both with regard to the election and women and girls. >> with respect to the women and

girls, i had a conversation with senator boxer earlier and i committed to the ongoing significant efforts that secretary clinton has invested in. we will continue to have the ambassador and special office within the state department. more importantly, we think that there cannot be any effective peace, and there will not be in afghanistan if we cannot hold onto the gains and continue the progress made with respect to women's participation. we remain committed to that. i will work in every way

possible to augment -- a number of people who have made suggestions to me, i will not go into them now because of time, they are exciting. there are people who want to be involved in this endeavor. they have been inspired by secretary clinton has done. she has been the ambassador in that role. we will continue to do that. on the elections, there is a group within the american initiative within our efforts in kabul, in afghanistan working very hard on the rules of the road for the election and working with the afghan commission.-- afghan election commission. they are working right now on some of the computer programming and other things that are necessary to be able to guarantee that the voting lists are up and accurate and available. there have been meetings with potential candidates for president with the opposition faults and others in afghanistan -- folks and others in afghanistan

in an effort to be inclusive in the process. i have said it publicly and a kabul and here -- having acceptable elections -- it would not be perfect.we are not going to be able to phave perfection for a lot of reasons. but having an election that passes muster and is acceptable according to the observers and standards will be critical to our ability to have the kind of transition we want to have and to have confidence that the government that succeeds in 2014 has legitimacy. if it does not have legitimacy, if we do not succeed in in that effort, it will be difficult to convince the american people and convince our allies to stay engaged in this effort if they are not willing to provide for themselves with respect to that. i went through this personally

with president karzai in the last election were there were-- where there were serious questions about the propriety of process. we have to strike a compromise about it. i do not think there will be room for a compromise in the aftermath. i will make sure that we are staying very very close on it. >> with respect to the difficult challenge we have with the iad's -- ied's constructed between pakistan and afghanistan and become the roadside bombs that have killed so many of our troops, the leading cause of death and wounded so many as well, we know there is a legal impediment in afghanistan does not do us much good because of the calcium

ammonium nitrate that comes across the borders from pakistan. this has been not just horrific to watch, but frustrating when i go to pakistan three times and in the last visit telling the pakistan of leaders, we need you to help us with that not only to protect rgi's but your own-- rotect our gi's but your own people. they promise, they promise, and talk about a great plan and strategy. so far, it is completely inaccurate -- inadequate, the response.i konw you -- i know you ahave worked on this. as secretary clinton has. i just want to get your sense of how we can make progress on that to use every bit of diplomacy, engagement, pressure, what ever it is to insist the government of pakistan takes steps which are readily identifiable to reduce the flow of what was a fertilizer that becomes -- >> i will say quickly, you have been a terrific leader on it and

you have paid a lot of attention to this and has made a difference. it is frustrating. i have had those conversations. i have had them at the highest level.with the president, the general, the intel chief. i have not been back in the last year or so for a number of different reasons. but i have been in touch -- before and again i was nominated. he and i look forward to having conversations to see if we cannot find a metric here that works for both of us. we have to. i will not go into the intel here. well. there is no question about weird it is being produced, where it is coming from, and how. it is one of those things we have to see greater cooperation on. >> thank you. senator mccain.

>> thank you for allowing the honor of introducing you to the committee. i look forward to many of our spirited conversations we have had for many years. i did not want to bring it up, but since it was brought up, i will have to respond again. americans do care. they do care why four americans were murdered. we do care why the american people were misled. they were misled by the talking points that secretary rice told the american people, which were false. they were misled when the information that we needed to know about how those talking points were put together, which we still do not know the answers to many months later. we were misled when we were not

allowed -- when we still have not gotten answers why there was not better security at the consulate when there was clear indications of the threat. we were misled when we were not told there was request for the 16 member security force to remain at the consulate and were removed. the list goes on and on. we still have not gotten the answers as to what happened in benghazi. for anyone to say we do not care what happened is absolutely false. i can tell you that because i talked to the families of those who were murdered. some of us will continue our efforts to find out the answers to these questions. the american people deserve them, including white the-- why the president of the united states after alleging in a debate with mitt romney said he had called it a terrorist act when in fact he had not.

that same day he did an interview with cbs news saying he did not know what happened. it was probably two weeks later he said he did not know the cause. we knew that people do not bring rpg's and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. some of us will not give up on this despite what some in the media think we should do until we get all of the answers. i was hanging on every word you were saying. i happened to glance at my apps. here is a bbc report. the un says there has been a huge leap in the number of syrian refugees arriving in jordan putting a considerable strain on the resources.the un hcr said that more than 26,500 refugees have crossed into jordan since 1 january.

up to 3000 were arriving every day and at least 50,000 were waiting to cross. that happens to be the camp that we visited. that happens to be the camp where just a few days before there was a very bad storm and these tents were blown down and there were riots and demonstrations and anger and frustration. the belief that we are not helping them. the anger that we felt when a young woman who is a teacher said -- this next generation of children will take revenge on those who did not help them. we are sowing the wind in syria and we will reap the whirlwind. that will be the increased presence of al qaeda and islamist groups that are now flooding into syria, as you know. 60,000 dead and counting. the fall of assad is, quote,

inevitable. he is planning on plan b which is going to the coast and doing some ethnic cleansing. i appreciate your optimism about the russians. the russians continue to supply them with arms. they continue to veto every resolution that might do something about syria. vladimir putin has just enacted one of the most inhumane a loss -- laws in preventing americans from adopting russian children who-- from adopting russian children who clearly are now deprived of an opportunity of a better life. i do not think the status quo in syria is something we need to have some more conversations about. i think we ought to tell the syrian people that we are either going to help the more we are not. we know that a no-fly zone and

the supply of arms so they can defend themselves to counter the arms being provided by the iranians and the iranian revolutionary guard on the ground and the now hundreds of thousands of refugees that are putting the strain on our allies. i have had a lot of conversations. we have had a lot of hearings. we have not done anything. again, 60,000 dead. after 22 months, all i get from the administration is the fall of assad is, quote, inevitable. i agree. but what about what happens in the meantime?i hope that you -- i know you are deeply concerned about the situation. but it is terrible. it is heartbreaking. to meet a group of young women as i did in that camp but enter -- that camp in turkey who had been gained rate he's really a horrible experience. -- gang raped is really a horrible experience. we can put more books on the--

we can do a lot more without p utting american boots on the ground. we can prevent this -- inhumanity, otherwise we will be judged harshly by history. i know that from our previous conversations that you will make this your highest priority. i look forward to at least exploring and trying to implement a different policy than the one we have pursued for the last 22 months. >> thank you. you know this because you and i have talked about this at great length. i have a complete understanding where you are coming from and i know your frustration and i know what you are trying to say about this.

i do want to say to you that i do not want inquisitiveness or curiosity about what possibility might be with russia to be translated into optimism. i do not have optimism. i hope, because the easiest way to resolve it, would be if they were able to reach it if together we could find some track to change the equation and the calculation of assad. i think what everybody worries about is that if you have a complete implosion of the state, nobody has a clear definition of how you put those pieces back together. number two, you have a much greater risk with respect to the chemical weapons. that is why i want to get in and see what the contingency plans are. i cannot measure risk without having a sense of what is on the table.

what i do know is there are a lot of weapons there. there are people in the gulf -- you know who they are -- they are not hesitating to provide weapons. that is one of the reasons that the movement on the ground is faster than the movement --the movement in the politics. so, that is what makes this very complicated. i am deadly serious when i say to you, we will have to sit down. there is nothing more that we need more than congressional consensus if we can build it on something like this. particularly, if the worst happens and you have disintegration. there are other forces at play that none of us have any control over. one of the things that has struck me in the last year the

more i have traveled the region is the depth of the sectarian divide. you know it well. sunni, shia, enter deeply into lots of judgments out there. we have to be particularly -- others. you have 74% of syria that is muslim. you have 16% made up of alawite and some shia. the alawite are 10%.-- about 13 %. rue --inanans, j you have a breakdown with interest in various parts of the country. i know one of the scenarios everybody is talking about is people could break up often to their places. the kurds could be in the northeast. it could have a disintegration. who knows where that leads?

these are the risks. this is what is at stake in this new world we are dealing with. nobody can sit here and tell you .nobod can sit here and tell you how it all plays out. we are going to have to get our heads together, regardless of party, and think about the interest of the united states of america, think about the region, the interest of the neighbors, the interest of our friends like israel, and figure out how we come up with an equation that is workable and meets those interests. the final comment, i did not suggest and i do not want to suggest that hillary clinton was saying people do not care about what happened. she was talking about the difference between what the recommendations were and implementing them and this notion that we have to go backwards. here is what i say to you. after 29 years here, i respect the prerogatives of the united

states senate and the members of congress. you represent the american people.you are the other branch of government. you have a right to know what took place. i have an obligation commensurate with regulations and classifications and privacy and other things at play here to help you get the answers. i will do that. i hope we can do that in a non- contentious appropriate way. >> i think you would agree with me that every day that goes by in syria, it gets worse. it seems to me there is a very strong impetus that we realize that the present policy is not succeeding and to look at other options to prevent what is going on now for 22 months with 60,000 dead. >> i agree, but i think you

would agree with me that whatever judgments you make, they have to pass the test of whether or not that if you do them, they are actually going to make things better. you have to make a test of a cost analysis in doing that. human life cost, effect on other countries. >> thank you. >> john, thank you for being here. theresa, it is great to see you and the family here as well. the question from john mccain is not expect -- not unexpected. i do remember his opening comments introducing you. it brought me back to my first days when you and john mccain, vietnam veterans, worked together in a noble task to establish normal relations with vietnam, which continue to this day and to deal with the

controversial, contentious issue of pow's and mia's. i came to you as a brand new senator, you two did an extraordinary job of moving him forward and giving him a chance to serve. thank you for reminding me of that chapter in my public career and reminding me what you and john carry accomplish together. -- you and john kerry accomplished together. i went to ask you about the role of the secretary of state and the security of the united states. it is often called upon to negotiate to make us safer. since world war ii that has involved a nuclear weapons, and it does to this day as we

discuss the future of nuclear entrants like, god forbid, iran into the nuclear club, which we do not want to see happen. we knew after 9/11 there was a new threat, terrorism, biological chemical weapons, stateless organizations that attack the united states and kill innocent people. i think it was last year or the year before that we were briefed by the state department and the department of defense about the greatest threat to the security of the united states and it was cyber security. i think you may have attended the briefing, the classified briefing for members of the senate, democrats and republicans, and they explain to us this invisible war that goes on even as we meet between the united states and many who are not our friends that are trying to invade us, invade our

infrastructure, invade our technology and do great harm to us. not just in economic terms but in terms of human life. we are told of this is the most serious threat facing us today. it brings to mind the fact that in the 21st century, war as we know it is different. it is a war involving the invisible workings of computers. it is drones and aircraft. i would like you to reflect on this as far as the role of the secretary of state and negotiations to make us safer in a world where cyber security is our greatest threat. >> that is a huge question. you have hit the nail in the head with respect to the significant threat. as you know, there is legislation -- there was legislation last year, which we tried to get through, that would have helped us. a very small step in trying to deal with this issue. much of this as you know is

classified. it is hard to lay it out in full before the american people. every day as we sit here, certain countries are attacking our systems. they are trying to hack in to classified information, to various agencies of our government, to banking structures. the money has been stolen from accounts and moved in large sums. there is a long list of grievances with respect to what this marvel of the internet and the technology age has brought us. but it is threatening. it is threatening to our power grid and our communications, threading to the capacity to-- threatening to our capacity to respond. there are people out there who know it. there are some countries we are currently engaged in, all of the

senators know who they are, they have a good understanding of this power and who are pursuing it. it is the modern-day -- i guess i would call it the 21st century nuclear weapons equivalent. we are going to have to engage a in cyber diplomacy and cyber negotiations and try to establish rules of the road that help us to be able to cope with this challenge. there are enormous difficulties ahead. as you know, i think most diplomacy is an extension of a particular nation's interests. in some cases it is an extension of their values. sometimes you get a terrific opportunity to mix the two and you can do things that need all -- meet all

of your aspirations. sometimes you are more waited in -- weighted in the interest in the values. you can all pig different countries and things you have done that need to that. -- pick a different countries and things you have done that need to do that. this is a way to address the interest of other states to find common ground, if that makes sense to you. we're going to have to dig into it a lot deeper. i do not have a magic silver bullet. >> i wanted to bring it up because i think it is topical. and timely in terms of our 21 st-century challenge. when you become secretary of state which i believe you will, this will be front and center. i would also like to come down to a much more mundane issue i raised before with the current secretary, and that is the impact of sequestration on the department of state. we are literally weeks away from mandated budget cuts within the department of state. we have spent yesterday and even again today talking about

security at our embassies, consulates, and for men and women who risk their lives to represent america. i would ask you in closing that you would try to as soon as you can report to us about the impact of these cuts on our state department, which has a small percentage of our budget but is going to face substantial cuts because of the sequestration requirements. >> i am glad you raised it. we are going to have to talk about it. yesterday we had a hearing in which two distinguished people were the basis of the report in which you were having the hearing. admiral mullin and secretary pickering said we need $1.2

billion or more to do what we need to do for security. if you let the american presence of their, we are going to have to deal with -- we have to get our business done here and do it the right way. i just want to say to people that -- i will wait until we come to the budget. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday with secretary clinton i asked about the assertion that al qaeda had been decimated. she said what we are seeing now are people who have migrated back to other parts of the world, primarily they are affiliates.part of the jihadist syndicate. she said some of them like al qaeda in the islamic use that name, others use different names. she said, they are terrorists. they are extremists. they have designs on overthrowing existing governments. she said we do have to contend with the wanna-be's and affiliates going forward.

i would ask your assessment on the strength of al qaeda, the affiliates, the wanna-be's and the challenge it will present. >> it is very real. i agree with secretary clinton's statement and her appraisal. the core al qaeda, we are talking about the al qaeda that took us to afghanistan and to pakistan. that is core al qaeda. those are the people who attack the united states of america. those are the people we approved military action against unanimously in the congress in 2001. they have migrated. if you go to the intel -- i think this is unclassified. i know this is unclassified. osama bin laden in the documents that came out is quoted as urging his cohorts to go to other places, to get away from the airplanes, get away from the

drones. he specifically encouraged al qaeda to disperse, and they did it. in addition to that, we have been under the directive of the president who undertook the most concentrated effort in history in terms of targeting a specific terrorist group, we have taken huge proportions of the leadership of coeur al qaeda, a a core al qaeda, huge proportion. you do not want to be no. 3 or no. 4 in line in that business because they are disappearing as fast as to get the job. obviously, the top dog who took the place of osama bin laden is still at large, but i think there are those in the intel community and the administration who believe that over the course of the next months, that core al

qaeda can really be almost degraded to the point that is no longer a threat.the threat has agugmented. i think that is why the united states, the resident has made the decision to support the efforts of the french in molly -- mali. and that is why there has been a very focused effort, including going after -- in yemen, to focus on that part of the world. there is a success story, even as i talk about that increased threat. in somalia, where the auch about became -- al-shabab became associated with al qaeda,

we have been able to drive them back and actually see a -- in which weerge are in a position to help, hopefully stabilize and move to a better relationship. we can change these things. but it takes a focused effort. it takes perseverance. it does not happen overnight. i would also argue it takes something more than just the drone effort and the other effort to develop a government like we did in somalia. we have to be prepared to do that in my breath --ma magreb -- in magreb. >> we talked about bring to justice the killers -- do you think that has emboldened the recent attack?

because no one has paid a penalty for the attacks? , i cannot get in anybody's mind about what they do or do not know about that. i will tell you this. if so, it is going to be short- lived. i know from talking to the fbi director that they are pursuing that diligently. he was personally just in libya at a meeting on this. those efforts are going to continue. i know that this president -- he does not bluff about these kinds of things. he has said they are going to pay a price. he has said that if we have opera -- evidence we need to operate on -- i am confident that when and if we are prepared, we will execute, with respect to finding justice for what happened in men ghazi -- ben ghazghazi.

, yesterday, a majority of senators, i bipartisan group -- >> yesterday, majority of senators, a bipartisan group signed on requesting that he expeditiously approve the construction of the pipeline. we are asking that the review process be completed by the end of march. i hope you will be able to comply but that--with that. >> i will try. i need to check back in with the legal department -- i don't want to make a promise if i'm unaware of what can be fulfilled. i can tell you this. it is happening in the appropriate due course of business. we will try to get it done as soon as we can. >> i had a chance to visit with senator sam nunn. you have to think about what is in the interest of the united states, what is in the humanitarian issue, as we look at limited resources. i know climate change has been a big issue that you have been concerned about and focused on. it seems over the next 25 years the global energy needs are

going to increase about 50%, that emissions are going to go up significantly, primarily because of china and india. we could do significant harm to the u.s. economy by putting additional rules and regulations with very little impact on the global climate. in this -- in this tight budget environment, with some any-- so many competing priorities, i would-- in this tight budget environment, with so many competing american priorities, i would ask you to give considerable thought into limiting significantly resources that would not help us as an economy, not help us as a country, and not help a schoolboy -- not help us globally. >> i have a lot of specific thoughts on it.more than we have time for now. i will not abuse that privilege. i will say the solution to climate change is energy policy. and the opportunities of energy policy so vastly outweigh the down sides that you are

expressing concern about. and i will spend a lot of time trying to persuade you and other colleagues of this. if you want to do business and do it well in america, you have to get into the energy race. other countries are in it. in massachusetts, the fastest growing sector of our economy is clean energy and energy efficiency companies. and they are growing faster than any other sector. the same is true in california. this is a job creator. i cannot emphasize that strongly enough. the market that made america rich -- richer -- we have always been rich -- but the market them it is richer in the 1990's was the technology market. it was a $1 trillion market with 1 billion users. and we create greater wealth in america than has been created even in the raging time of the

pierpont morgan's and the mellon's and carnegie's and rockefeller's.we created more wealth in the 1990's. everyone went up. so we can do this recognizing that the energy market is a $6 trillion market compared to one with 4 billion users today going up and 9 billion over the course of the next 20 to 30 years. this is a place for us to recognize what other countries are doing and what are states-- our states that are growing are doing, which is there is an extraordinary amount of opportunity in modernizing america's energy grid. we don't even have a grid in america. we have a great big open gap in

the circle of america. you have the east coast grid, a texas grid, and then you have a line from chicago to the dakotas. from minnesota to arizona or arizona to massachusetts, it does not make sense. we cannot be a modern country if we don't fix that of a-- infra structure. i respectfully say to you that climate change is not something to be feared. it is to be feared if we don't take the steps. 3500 communities in our nation last year broke records for heat. we had a real that, because of the heat bend, and we had a derailment because of it. we had record fires, record damage from sandy, $77 billion. -- $70 billion. if we cannot see the downside of spending that money and risking lives for all the places with agriculture in the oceans and so forth, then we're just are a

note -- and we are just ignoring what science tells us.i iwill be a passionate advocate about this, not based on ideology, but based on facts, based on science. i hope to stick with all of you and convince you that the $6 trillion market is worth millions of american jobs and leadership. and we better go after it. >> thank you. >> to my good friend, senator baraso, wyoming and new mexico are producer states. i found the same experience that senator kerrey is talking about in massachusetts in mexico. the fastest growing sector is these renewable jobs. i think it is a big opportunity for us. we should be pursuing it. i agree with what he just said. i hope we can work with each other because we should try to pull together and discuss the

facts and really pursue this sector that will be so vital to the future and vital to job growth. but john, great to have you here. you really earned this. there is no doubt about it. it is great to see teresa and vanessa. i was walking over, my second time back here, and i saw the cutest grandchild i had seen in a long time. i said, are you going to bring him in. and they said no. in my observation, my short time on the foreign relations committee, i think a great deal of what the foreign-policy is about is building personal relationships and building personal relationships with leaders around the world. and the one thing that i have really observed, senator kerry,

of you is that you have done that. we have so many of these private meetings over there in the capital with the foreign relations room. i can just feel with meeting with all of these leaders the tremendous respect they have for you and the ability you will have to build on that to make an excellent secretary of state. so i am very excited about this opportunity for you. in my first question, i wanted to focus on mexico and central america. during the last decade to relations between the united states and mexico has strengthened as a result of our shared security goals relating to the merida initiative, which includes judicial reform. i think you know this very well. however, the federal government and many of the mexican states

have yet to pass legislation which would change their judicial system from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial system. i have a lot of experience with this as a stated journeyed -- as a state attorney general. we would meet every six months with mexican states and the west -- they ask us to loan people to them to help train in the adversarial system. so my question is how can the u.s. better work with their neighbors in mexico to improve transparency commis efficiency, and the quality of the judicial system and improve this transition they're trying to make from inquisitorial to an adversarial system? >> first of all, thank you for your generous comments. i very much appreciate them. i appreciate working with you on a lot of these issues. we are engaged now. you know this, that there are efforts with respect to the justice system. there has been a lot of focus on

guns and narcotics and so forth and there has been a shift in policy in mexico. the president was recently in different meetings and my hope is that we can -- i want to keep the existing effort to going, which could become subject to the sequestration and budget efforts. i guess we will have to convince our colleagues of the importance of these kinds of initiatives actually taking root and having the willingness to stamp them.-- to stay at them until we do get more results. mexico has been under siege. everybody knows that. it has been very difficult. a lot of courage exhibited by military folks and police.

i think there is an effort to move it somewhere away from the military and more into the justice system. which is why we will have to double our efforts here -- i think there is a need for more judiciary and to move away from the military.?? -- >> as you know, the new president of mexico has stated that his strategy with regards to security cooperation is to achieve a mexico in peace and that his government will not abandon the fight against organized crime. how will you were to ensure that -- work to ensure that areas of mutual interest between the two countries get the attention they deserve and how we get that cooperation along the border? it seems to me that that is absolutely crucial, the cooperation along the border. they have six border states. we have four. it is crucial that we work with

each other on that. >> the president is indeed trying to move this in a different direction. this has been a highly militarized and very violent initiative over the last years. i am a former prosecutor. you are a former attorney general. i was the chief administrative prosecutor in one of the 10 largest counties in america, middlesex county. and i love prosecuting. it was a great job. we created a drug task force and had all kinds of plans for how to proceed to minimize the impact of narcotics on our communities. one of the things i learned is that there is no one approach. you have to be doing everything that you need to do. and that means, domestically in the united states, you have to do education and you have to do treatment. because what we have is just a

revolving circle of demand and we are the principal demand country. not alone now. europe has a lot of huge demand and russia and other countries, too. cocaine routes and marijuana routes, etc., are not just coming up from colombia and other countries where it has been produced in latin america and the caribbean up to here. it is going across the atlantic into other countries now. it comes from asia into other countries. it is pandemic. so i think we need a more comprehensive approach, one that is less accusatory and finger pointing, and you work cooperatively to understand everybody's role in trying to do something about it. i have always felt that this label of war on drugs is artificial because, you know, or implies that it is all out here -- war implies that it is all out and you've got to win.

and i don't think it has never been all-out. principally because we have always failed to do our part with respect to treatment and education and accidents and so forth. we have to re-engage ourselves and i think that would help establish credibility and viability with other countries. >> thank you very much for those answers. >> senator paul. >> thank you for coming today for your testimony. i believe with candidate barack obama who said in 2007 that the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize military attack. i want to know if you agree with candidate barack obama or if you agree with president barack obama who took us to war in libya without congressional authority unilaterally. >> senator paul, one of the things this committee has spent a lot of time on is the war powers act, which i support. i believe in congressional authority to go to war.

i have argued that on that occasion, with respect to some things here. but there are occasions which i have supported where the president of united states has to make a decision immediately and implement that decision, execute on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition.

>> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thought barack obama was really explicit. that is what i like about him, quite frankly. i like his forthrightness when

he ran for office and said no president should unilaterally go to war. the constitution does not allow it. >> i respect him, you can be absolutist and apply to every problem. but the problem is that it does does not work in some instances when 10,000 people are about to be wiped out by a brutal dictator and you need to make a quick judgment about engagement. you certainly can't rely on the congress that has proven itself unwilling to move after weeks and months sometimes. >> you think a un resolution is sufficient to go to war? >> no, i think a u.n. resolution, when you say sufficient to go to war, i think the u.n. resolution is a necessary ingredient to provide the legal basis for military action in an emergency. it is not by any means sufficient to require the united states to do something because we obey our constitution and our interests and our rights. >> you heard president morsi's comments about the israelis being zionists and bloodsuckers and pace.-- descendants of apes

and pigs. do you think it's wise to send them tanks? >> i think those comments are reprehensible. those comments set back the possibilities of working towards interests of mutual interest.-- issues of mutual interest. they're degrading comments. they are unacceptable by anybo y -- anybody's standard. and i think they have to be appropriately apologize for. >> but if you keep sending them weapons, they will not change their behavior. >> let me finish. president morsi has issued two statements to clarify those comments. and we had a group of senators who met with him just the other day, spent a good part of their conversation in relatively heated discussion about it. but not everything -- this is always a complication in dealings in the international

sector. not everything lends itself to simple clarity, black-white, this, that, every time. we have critical interests with egypt. critical interests with egypt. egypt has thus far supported and lived by the peace agreement with israel. and has taken steps to begin to deal with the problem of security in the sinai. those are vital to us and to our national interests and to the security of israel. in addition to that, they have followed through on a promise to have an election. >> i know things are not black and white -- >> they have had an election. they had a constitutional process. there is another election coming

up shortly for the lower house. the fact that sometimes other countries elect somebody that you don't completely agree with doesn't give us permission to walk away from very election-- their election committee. >> but this is been the problem with their foreign policy for decades. laden.een laid in.-- we funded bin laden. hadeen.ed the mjuhja i see problems with this. >> as you know, senator, any of the arms sales that united states has engaged in in a part of the world, there's always a measure, a test that is applied with respect to equality of difference in any of those weapons with respect to israel-- israel's defense and security. and we do not sell weapons and will not sell weapons that might upset that qualitative dallas.--

balance. >> but we sell 20 f-sixteens to and we have to sell 25 to israel. one i just not give any weapons to israel's energies. -- israel's enemies.-- whjy not just give weapons to israel's enemies? that would say was a lot of money. >> better yet, until we are at that moment where that might be achievable, maybe it would be better to try to make peace. >> one more question, would you consider supporting conditioning aid to pakistan on the release of doctor shaquille afridi. i'm afraid that without this, we will not get more informants. >> let me speak to that. first of all, i have talked directly with president azari and with general queani about doctor zafridi.like most am ericans, i find it, as you do -- i find it incomprehensible and repugnant that somebody who helped to find osama bin laden is in jail in pakistan.

that bothers every american. that said, the pakistanis make the argument that he did not know what he was doing. that he did not know who wassp ecifically being targeted. what do you think that u.s. helping americans?-- >> do you think he knew he was helping americans? >> let me finish. he clearly knew what he was doing in that because they also make the argument that he was doing that as a matter of regular course of business. that is no excuse. i am simply explain to you that rather than cut aid, which is a pretty dramatic draconian sledgehammer approach to a relationship that really has a lot of interests. we have our ground line of communications, which is the military's complicated word for roads, that go to afghanistan. and that route is critical to

the supply of our troops. >> they were conditions, not cuts. >> on top of that, we had intelligence cooperation. our folks were able to cooperate on the ground in pakistan. that is one of the ways we were abole to get osama bin laden. it was there permissiveness and allowing our people to be there that help us be able to tie the knot that focused on that to some degree. not exclusively, obviously, but to some degree. in addition, they have lost some 6000 people just in the last year in their efforts to go after terrorists. they have lost about 30,000 people over the course of the last several years because they have been willing to engage the insurgencies. there are things that the pakistanis have done. as complicated as the

relationship has been. i intend to raise the issue of doctor rafridi with of them, i can promise you that. but i do not think it is wise to just cut our assistance. we need to build our relationship with the pakistanis. not diminish it. >> thank you very much. i am sorry that our careers in the senate only overlapped for a few weeks.i want to thank you because for those of us in our corner of the country that have been in public service for the past 20 years, it is your example that has inspired many of us to do so. your ability to position yourself as a spokesman for the disenfranchised and dispossessed and also as a steward of our country around the world. i think there are many of us who came into public service in part

because of your work for our region. i thank you for that. i wanted to spend my short time turning to the asia-pacific region. specifically spending a little bit of time on china as well. circuit -- secretary clinton gave a speech in singapore and crafted a great and very simple phrase about how today, 41st-- for the first time in modern history, you can become a global superpower simply through the -- for the first time in modern history, you can become a global superpower simply through the power of your economy. in canada, we have about 40% of our exports increased today. we are increasing their countries' exports to the region by 25% to 30%.

and we know, specifically to china, those numbers pale to what they could be because high- tech manufacturers power at the prospect of sending products there that will immediately be replicated and sold in counterfeit markets. military manufacturers in connecticut cannot even get into china even as their competitors get a pretty fair shot at getting into our market. and secretary clinton also talked about this new concept of economic statecraft. i wanted to get your thoughts about how we can use in continue to use the power of the department of state to try to pressure the chinese to both correct its flaws with respect to its disposition on intellectual property, pressure that nation to open up its market to more american goods, and then, in general, how you see our ability to really exercise economic pressure on that region to be a source of what we hope is a doubling of exports as the president has commanded us to do over the next five years.

>> first of all, thank you for your nice comments. i really appreciated. and welcome to the committee. i am delighted to see you and senator cain on the committee. senator reid and i chatted about the folks who might serve on the committee and i am delighted that both of you are there. i am sorry that -- obviously, we will be working together on the committee. -- we will not be working together on the committee. but believe me, we will be working together and i look forward to it. look, secretary clinton, if she was sitting here, and she has previously said, and i will simply reiterate and underscore, china is an ongoing process. and it takes commitment and perseverance to break through on one issue or another. we have a lot of issues with china.

my intention is to continue to focus as the administration has begun to retrieve bouncing to and -- through its rebalancing, to grow that rebalance because it is critical for us to strengthen our relationship with china. china is -- it is a significant economy in the world than it has a voracious appetite for resources in the world and we need to work with what works for everybody. that is why the administration came up with the trans-pacific partner in it -- partnership in an effort to try to establish greater leverage for this notion that are broadly set the rules -- broadly accepted roles of the road which are critical to our doing commerce. but on things like in connection -- intellectual property, market access, currency, there are still significant challenges ahead with china.

my hope is that the new administration will recognize also the need to shorter broaden the relationship with us in return. i could envision a way in which china could play a much more significant role as a partner in any number of efforts globally. we should not be viewed as -- i mean, we will be competitors in the economic marketplace, but we should not be viewed as adversaries in some way that diminishes our ability to cooperate on a number of things. china is cooperating with us now on iran. i think there might be more we can perhaps do with respect to north korea. there could be more we could do in other parts of the far east. and hopefully we can build those relationships that will further that transformation.

we make progress. pead is incremental. -- it is incremental. it is a tough slog. and there is not any single magic way to approach it. but if we have a better sense of their mutuality of our interest and the commonality of the goals that we can work toward, climate change is an example. if we just around where we are today in respect to the comments that i think baraso made, we will have a problem because china will soon have double the missions of the united states of -- double the missions theemissions of the united states of america. so we have to get these folks as part of this unified effort and i intend to work very hard to trying to do that. >> i appreciate that. the one probably most important

stumbling block to the growing diplomatic partnership that i agree could have transformational potential for the world is a potential conflict between china's growing military footprint in the region and now when it comes to our military interest as well. we have seen these growing territorial disputes between china and the philippines and china and japan and korea and japan. how do we ramp up militarily in the region without getting drawn in to a lot of these disputes, which we have no immediate interest in, but makes it a little bit harder to stay disconnected from if we just have a larger footprint there? >> i am not convinced that interest military ramp is -- that increased military ran upon -- ramp up is critical yet. i am not convinced of that. that is something i would want to look at very carefully when if -- when and if you folks confirm me and i get in there and i can begin to this deeper.

but we have more bases out there than any other nation in the world, including china today. we have a lot more forces out there than any other nation in the world, including china today. and we just augmented the president's announcement in australia with additional marines. the chinese take a look at that and say, what is the united states doing? are they trying to circle us? what is going on? every action has its reaction. it is not just the law of physics. it is the law politics. and diplomacy. i think we have to be thoughtful about how we go forward. i also want to take on the word "pivot." i think, getimplies that we are turning away from some morals. -- it implies that we are turning away from somewhere else. i want to emphasize that we're not turning away from a new world.

whenever we do in china, it should not -- or in the far east, in indonesia, which is rapidly growing and enormously important, vietnam, all of these countries -- should not come and i hope will not comment the respect -- in the expense of our relationships with europe and others. it cannot. what we need to do is bring europe along with us to the recognition of the opportunities in the far east. it would improve our clout. it would leverage the market. perhaps there has been some talk of a u.s.- eu trade relationship. i do not know if that can become a reality or not. but i think we need to think thoughtfully about not creating a threat where there is not one and understanding very carefully where we can find the basis of better cooperation. i want to emphasize -- because i don't want somebody out there saying that kerry has a mistaken notion of what china is up to or what they're doing. i am not saying you don't have

to be pretty careful and vigilant and understand where it is going. and i am not talking about retreating from their current -- from our current levels whatsoever. i am simply trying to think about how we do this in a way that does not create the reaction you don't want to create. >> thank you. senator mccain. >> senator kerry, your 29 years of service on this committee is a great example for those of us newcomers and i think you for -- i thank you for that and i look forward to working with u.s. secretary. -- with you as secretary. a comment and to questions. in the shares opening round of questions, he raised issues about our relations in the western hemisphere. that is deeply important to me. i worry a little bit that our foreign policy has been very oriented east-west. but the north-south texas is --

axis is alsouth acces very important. i worry about the -- but the north-south axis is also very important. i worry about the chinese in latin america. as you talk about these matters today, i really hope that the state department has that north- south taxes as a key focus. your opening comments demonstrated what has long been a position of yours, that you understand that we have a number will bond with israel and that -- an unbreakable bond with israel and that is why the definitive statement about the iranian nuclear ambitions, that we have a possibility of prevention, that is very heartening to hear. as much as i believe that, i also believe that, as difficult as it looks, we also long for the day, long for the prospect that there will be peace between a secured a jewish state of israel and an independent and

prospers palestine. it might seem unlikely, but the current peaceful relationships in ireland seemed equally unlikely 30 years ago. what would your approach be as secretary of state in trying to advance that day so that it might be sooner rather than later. >> part of my approach to help them advance that days to not be too explicit here today. [laughter] a have a lot of thoughts about that challenge. one of the things that i can guarantee you -- i don't want to prejudice it by public demands to any party at this time. i will say this. president obama is deeply committed to a two-state solution.

i have been reading lately speculation about whether or not he is committed to the process or what he thinks or believes, etc. a lot of it is wrong and blown out of proportion. the president understands the stakes and the implications in the middle east. and the almost -- so much of what we aspire to achieve and what we need to do globally, what we need to do in south asia, south central asia, throughout the gulf, all of this is tied to what can or doesn't happen with respect to israel and palestine. in some places, it is used as an excuse. in other places, it is a genuine and deeply felt challenge.

i will say anything that prejudice is our ability to try to get a negotiation moving in the appropriate way, a new corporate matter, and i will -- in the appropriate manner, and i will even go into what that is. -- not even go into what that is. but i think -- i personally believe -- i have been at this almost 29 years in this committee. we have been at this. i have watched all of it. i was on the lawn when we were there with the handshake. with arafat. i have been through seven prime ministers, nine and all, two of them with the same. and i have seen what plantation. we need to try to find a way forward and i happen to believe that there is a way forward. but i also believe that, if we

cannot be successful, the door or window or whatever you want to call it to the two-day -- to the possibility of the two- state solution which it to everybody and that would be disastrous, in -- could show up on everybody and that would be disastrous, in my judgment. so i think this is an enormously important issue. i will never step back from my commitment to the state of israel, which i have shown for the 29 years i have been here. but i also will not step back from my understanding of the plight of palestinians and others who are caught up in the swirl of this. young children who i have seen who have hopes for a future, i would like to see us deliver. >> the state department and the secretary play critical roles in human rights and you touched on those today. a recent example, your involved in some way with the activity with secretary clinton and

others on the side of the human rights activist in china. i am concerned about religious freedom. we share a faith background and we also shared commitment that all should be able to worship as they please or not without official pressure replenishment -- without official pressure or punishment or preference. whether it is marginalization of muslims in europe or repression of christians in the middle east wars anti-semitism anywhere. the u.s. has -- or anti- semitism in europe. the u.s. has a place. i would like to hear you talk about that. >> i couldn't agree more and i am glad you raised that issue. it is at the core of who we are. the tolerance of which the united states is founded is one of our greatest attributes. and it is interesting. i will tell you that we have gone through our own turbulence in that.

we did not arrive at it naturally. the. -- the puritans came to massachusetts and there were few excesses. then a guy named roger williams left massachusetts and went down and traveled through the forests through the winter and came out on a day and call that province. -- called it providence. that is now a province, rhode island. you have -- providence, rhode island. you have john davenport in new haven, connecticut. they were all the way from religious persecution right here in our own country. it took us awhile to get it right. i think we do. needless to say, one of the rules of the state department is to help people understand what an essential ingredient tolerances and diversity and pluralism. to the ability of the country to flourish, for people to have their rights. that is one of the big challenges that we face.

i am sure that my visors in the state department would say, stop there, senator. but i will say something additional, which is -- i have a lot of friends who are muslim who have met and built relationships over the years in my travels. leaders in that region will be the first to tell you, me, others that what you see a radical islam is not islam. it is radical islam. it is an exploitation and hijacking of an old and honored religion. and what we need to do is find a way -- and this is something we have to work at -- for people to understand the degree to what that is happening and how it has become an excuse for their disenfranchisement, for being deprived of good governance,

for being deprived of a good economy, jobs and opportunity. one of our missions is to not let that be an excuse. so i think carrying the banner of religious tolerance and diversity and pluralism is critical. i know we have raised that with president morsi. i've personally raised that with him. i think i was the first american to meet with him before he became -- before he even knew he was a candidate. and we talked about the need for the brother had to be able to respect the diversity of egypt. that has not happened completely as much as we would like in the constitutional process. but, as i said, that is an ongoing process and we need to work together in order to try to do it. but, senator, you've raised a central issue with respect to what is happening to politics of certain regions of the world. and it has to be front and center in our dialogue.

>> thank you. >> thank you for having the hearing. mr. chairman, i think all of us who have no new and have known your service here for 29 years thought they you would acquit herself well today. i think you have acquitted yourself exceptionally well. i know you will be confirmed in the next very few days. i thank you for the fact that you want to serve in this position and the fact that you have developed such an extensive background and understanding. i know you will be really good in this job. i look forward to working with you. and thank you for the patience. mr. chairman, at two quick questions. having gone through the lengthy hearings on the administrative review boards recommendations and what happened in benghazo, can we be assured that you will make a top priority?

>> absolutely. >> secondly, with arab democracy programs worldwide,, we expected to be strong supporter of those programs? >> yes. >> to suggest that spring break is a form of torture to the regime, they are experts about torture. as is evidenced by the increasing brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy advocates on the island just in the last year. over 6600 peaceful democracy advocates were detained or arrested. just this past sunday, the ladies in white, a group of women who dress in white and marjorie sun. -- in a white every sunday try to get together to go to church.

the results of that -- these are individuals who are the relatives of former or current political prisoners in jails. the result is that more than 35 of the women in white were intercepted, beaten with belts, threatened to death by agents aiming guns at them and temporarily arrested. then we have the united states citizen who all he tried to do was try to give access to the internet to a small jewish group in havana and has been languishing in jail for four years. that is real torture. mr. chairman, you have given an incredibly thoughtful, extensive, passionate at times, and an incredible depth of knowledge before this committee for nearly three hours and 50 minutes. it is a testament to your long service, yearlong commitment and what we can expect of you as

the next secretary of state. and i know that your father, richard, who also served this country, would be extremely proud of you today. the committee will receive questions for the records until the close of business today. so we years members who may have any questions to do so by the close of business today. we encourage the nominee and the department to respond to the questions as expeditiously as possible. with that, the meeting is adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> said a majority leader harry reid said he liked to hold a vote this tuesday on senator kerry to the position of secretary of state. and chalk hagel is set to testify before the armed services committee this week. he is set to replace leon panetta. that is live thursday here at 9:30 a.m. on c-span. >> what is the best training for a policeman? >> i will say again, the best training you can get to become a good police officer is walking a foot peak. you learn how to develop

sources. you learn how to use intelligence information. you learn how to leverage relationships in the community. that is the key. people in the community trust you. they will tell you when there are things that are happening that are not get a crime, so you can intervene. and they will tell you how to go about doing it. i learned the most in my career from those relationships. >> from high school dropout and single mother to the and as police chief in washington, d.c. history, more with kathy non- neera -- cathy lanier sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's kendeigh. >> coming up, a look at the consumer electronics show. followed by homeland security secretary janet nepalitano. and later, the president, first lady, and vice president attending the national prayer service.

>> the communicators is on location in las vegas. this is part of the convention floor you are seen. this is only about one-fourth of what is available. this is the largest trade show in the world, one of the largest, about 100,000 people attending every year. here are some of the programs that we taped while in vegas. and now joining us is andrew thompson, president cannot ceo, and co-founder of party as digital health. what is your company? >> it is the first digital medicine company. we created a platform that we call digital health feedback. the main components are in adjustable center that turned on when you swallow it. it sends information to a patch you can wear on your torso